DSSCU head testifies public objections not considered in project approval
Considering public opinion was not a requirement if all criteria were met by a construction application, an incumbent civil engineering official testified in a court of law.
Over the weekend, the Court of First Instance (TJB) held an added hearing for judicial procedure concerning the corruption allegations against Jaime Carion and Li Canfeng, both former directors of the now-restructured Land, Public Works and Transport Bureau (DSSOPT).
Lai Weng Leong, director of the Land and Urban Construction Bureau (DSSCU), was subpoenaed to testify at the court as witness. He worked as the acting department head for urban construction and occasionally acted as deputy director of the bureau.
The DSSCU was separated from the DSSOPT where it was previously a branch supervising private construction.
According to his testimony, the then deputy director of the DSSOPT, Cheung Ion Man, was on leave when he handled the Coloane Hill residential project. This was one of the main projects that triggered this case.
Despite being on leave, Cheung was very concerned with the project’s vetting process, Lai testified. Cheung told him that if all criteria were met by the project, it should be approved. Public objections should not have been a main concern, Lai cited Cheung as saying. He said he was even assured that “the rest of the matter” would be handled by the superintendents.
Sio In Ha, prosecutor coordinator, then asked Lai if he had considered a short delay so that Cheung could sign the approval after his leave ended. Lai said in response that he did not remember considering this option, adding that working on dispatches was his task, which explained why he did so.
Recalling the incident further, Lai said that he believed the call from Cheung was in fact an instruction from Li. He was then asked if Li and Cheung were closed enough to resemble siblings, to which he replied that sometimes those in the bureau “would jokingly say so.”
Lai also revealed that, back then, the strategy for projects without all criteria met was to delay. Applicants would be asked for responses but, if they did not reply, the project would be set aside without being approved nor declined.
Lai’s testimony to the court contradicted his statements to the corruption commission, and the judge said she would take this into account.
Li was accused of exchanging interests with developers amid widespread opposition against the Coloane Hill project. He was also accused of skipping administrative procedures by approving the use of the Windsor Arch project.
When testifying on the latter project, Lai did not consider Li’s instruction to skip procedures for Windsor Arch a legal violation. The developer had lost the engineering log book, but Li made orders to allow the use of the project before the log book was located.
The main reason for Lai’s action, as he explained, was that there was no clear stipulation on the order of occurrence, which he understood as permitting simultaneous occurrence.
Prosecutor Coordinator Sio asked Lai to clarify who gave the order to speed up the approval process for the Windsor Arch project. “Several superintendents, including the secretary, the director and the deputy directors,” Lai replied.
When questioned about the order in which the log book was found and the project was approved, Lai said that, according to his understanding, the approval was more urgent because the expire date for land use was soon approaching.
He added that, as far as he understood, his then superintendents did not want to “complicate the matter.” When asked to explain the possible complications, he said “it might have been impactful on the project’s approval.”
