Our Desk | Fong in limbo

Daniel Beitler

Fong Soi Kun, the (disgraced?) former director of Macau’s Meteorological and Geophysical Bureau, is seemingly stuck in limbo – not quite a government official but not allowed to retire from the post.

Fong, who was responsible for the bureau when the devastating Typhoon Hato struck on August 23, is currently under investigation to determine whether he abused his power during his tenure as chief.

The accusations against him range from incompetence to corruption, including the possibility that he made the decisions on whether to hoist typhoon signals from home and that these calls were influenced by the wishes of casino operators.

On August 24, a day after Hato and with the city left in a state of bewilderment and confusion, chief executive Chui Sai On stepped into action by “announcing the resignation” of Fong.

This seemed a little strange to me at the time, as I am accustomed to the practice of senior officials announcing their own resignation.

It was not as though Fong was frightened to face the public; he had spoken with reporters only the night before when much of the loss of life was already known.

And the former chief was also experienced in defending the bureau’s calls, having justified inappropriate typhoon signals on several occasions – though admittedly those other occasions had far fewer repercussions.

It seems likely that Chui asked him not to attend the press conference. By “announcing the resignation” of Fong, the chief executive took command of the situation, and protected his own reputation and the stability of the MSAR, even if he had to throw a colleague under the bus.

The Secretary for Administration and Justice, Sonia Chan, chimed in on that same fateful day with a brief comment, noting that Fong “will retire after 30 years of public service” effective immediately.

Fast forward to October 1 and Sonia Chan realized that there was a problem: Fong’s retirement application had been revoked for not respecting the legal notice period of 30 days. She would spin it to the public as though Fong had failed to follow the administrative procedure, when in fact the chief executive had forced through the decision.

It’s amazing that it took a total of 38 days for anybody to realize – or publicly state – that the resignation violated normal procedures. For an official who is so comfortable with “interpretations” of Macau law, Chan seemed woefully uninformed about it.

The ordeal brings to mind a comment from former lawmaker Chan Meng Kam, who in the last legislative assembly term remarked that high- ranking government officials should be forced to sit the same examinations that junior civil servants face, including those that test an understanding of Macau law.

A requirement of this kind would help to prevent embarrassing episodes for the chief executive and his secretaries, but also for those department heads recruited from the field and not from the ranks of the government.

Take for example the case of the former head of the Cultural Affairs Bureau, Ung Vai Meng, who is under (a quiet) investigation for widespread hiring misconduct. Was he required to possess the same knowledge of Macau law as his underlings?

If forcing all civil servants – regardless of rank – to be informed about the law doesn’t solve these problems, then it at least proves that the officials deliberately violate them.