Legislative Assembly | HK, Singapore tougher on corruption than Macau, says Agnes Lam

Hong Kong and Singapore are much tougher on corruption than Macau, said lawmaker Agnes Lam yesterday at the Legislative Assembly (AL), citing relatively lenient punishments in the MSAR for such crimes even though the three jurisdictions are similar in terms of prevention works. Several of Lam’s AL peers aligned with her stance, believing more severe punishment will help restore public confidence in the government.

As requested by lawmakers Agnes Lam, Leong Sun Iok, and José Pereira Coutinho respectively, a debate on anti-corruption policy, measures, and effectiveness was conducted at the Legislative Assembly (AL) yesterday afternoon.

Lam’s enquiry focused on the punishment for corruption and malpractice by civil servants. The lawmaker questioned whether heavier punishment would be more effective in terms of prevention.

She said that even though the Criminal Code has “severe” provisions for some conditions or crimes, for others the punishments are relatively mild. Also, these provisions of “severity” are mainly applicable to civil servants.

Meanwhile, Leong questioned whether appraisers in charge of internal disciplinary procedure are well-prepared for the responsibility. He provided examples such as the case of the former Meteorological and Geophysical Bureau (SMG) head, Fong Soi Kun, which the government suspended from obtaining retirement fund for a total of four years. Fong had later filed an appeal to the Court of Second Instance, which revoked the government’s decision as the Court had found flaws in the disciplinary procedure against Fong.

Coutinho supported Leong, adding that certain codes had not been reviewed for the past 20 years.

As the authority in relation to this topic, Secretary for Administration and Justice Sonia Chan presided over the session and answered questions from lawmakers.

INEFFECTIVE MECHANISM

Lawmakers Ng Kuok Cheong and Sulu Sou both questioned Secretary Sonia Chan on the effectiveness of the existing mechanism, especially on the fact that it seldom deters senior officials from corrupt practices. “The law is here, but the CCAC [Commission Against Corruption] report shows all types of violations,” said Ng. “The highest positions were never affected. Is the law still useful?”

Ng brought up the cases involving the Macao Trade and Investment Promotion Institute, the Productivity and Technology Transfer Centre, and the Macau Customs to exemplify his statement that higher officials were not held accountable. None of them were charged even as all were mentioned in the CCAC report released earlier this year.

Mak Soi Kun raised the issue of inaction in government departments. “It is an invisible killer,” he said.

Secretary Chan replied by reiterating that the accountability system is the core belief of the government. She also said that inaction would not be tolerated.

‘NOT ENOUGH CASES’

In the course of replying to Leong’s question, Chan revealed that there are 400 cases of civil service malpractice each year on average. With this, she thought “there weren’t enough cases to support more severe punishments.”

Near the end of the debate, Agnes Lam disclosed that there are around 700 cases of malpractice per year on average in Hong Kong’s team of 180,000 civil servants. Macau currently has around 40,000 civil servants.

Many echoed Leong Sun Iok’s proposal to the government of setting up an independent commission against misconduct in public services. Secretary Chan replied that the government would take these suggestions into account.

Several lawmakers questioned Chan about the government’s standard in a disciplinary procedure. For example, Ella Lei said there was a case in which two officials were investigated for abuse of power. Both later were found guilty, with one being suspended from work and the other not.

Secretary Chan replied that it is at the individual bureau’s discretion regarding suspension from work.

In reply to his colleagues’ comments, Wu Chou Kit expressed his belief that Macau is fairly strong in terms of administrative cleanliness, adding that to say the city needs to “hold officials accountable for each malpractice has no meaning.”

A HEATED EXCHANGE

Yesterday’s meeting kicked off with a degree of tension between AL President Ho Iat Seng and lawmaker Coutinho, who argued about whether the legislative body had correctly handled an administrative procedure concerning the lawmaker’s motion.

Ho acknowledged that Coutinho had requested a separate debate for his motion, but said that since this would cause changes to the existing agenda and likely require extra meeting sessions, a vote on the request was first required.

Coutinho replied that he had been notified of the date of the debate, but not his request for the motion. His justification for the separate debate session was because his motion was not closely related to the recent CCAC report. The president reminded Coutinho that the introduction of the motion had reference to the CCAC report.

Coutinho’s request for a separate debate was put to vote, supported by only four lawmakers, and ultimately rejected.

Mak Soi Kun also complained about the time needed for the government to respond to lawmakers’ interpellations. “The legal timeframe is 30 days; but sometimes I had to wait for 100 days to get my reply,” he said. Staff reporter