*********************************************************

Following is the speech by the Chief Secretary for Administration, Mrs Anson Chan, on the motion of no confidence in the Chairman of the Housing Authority and the Director of Housing in the Legislative Council today (June 28):

Madame President,

With your permission, I would like to wind up this debate on behalf of the Administration. Firstly, I want it placed firmly and unambiguously on record that the government fully understands and shares the frustration, disappointment and dissatisfaction with the misdemeanours that have led to this debate. The incompetence and corruption that has been uncovered is even more galling set against the success we have had over four decades in providing decent and affordable homes for almost half of our population, whilst at the same time raising standards and reducing waiting times.

Secondly, I acknowledge that in matters as serious as this, where public concern had been aroused, it is only right that in our open and plural society, where the executive is constitutionally accountable to the legislature, that this matter should be fully and frankly aired. My concern is that in doing so, we may inevitably be distracted from the greater task which is to ruthlessly eliminate the inadequacies and shortcomings in the system; and ensure that mechanisms are put in place so that we do not again have to deal with a scandal of this magnitude. I wish at this point to reassure Honourable Members and all the members of the community that the provision of a proper level and quality of rental and ownership public housing will remain at the cornerstone of our social programmes, as it has been for the past 40 years.

Thirdly, Madame President, I would be less than honest if I did not say that I am saddened, and not a little troubled, to see two fine public servants, who have between them served this community for over 50 years, virtually put on public trial in a manner that has far-reaching and potentially damaging effects on the governance of the SAR. Ms Wong's resignation on Saturday may satisfy some, but it will do little or nothing to resolve the critical issues at stake in this debate.

The Honourable Mr Fred Li has said, as indeed have others, that he is not calling for Ms Wong and Mr Miller to resign, but rather to create the culture of political accountability. Isn't that just a little disingenuous, given that the whole parliamentary tradition of a vote of no confidence is to bring down a Minister or even a government? There are surely other ways to bring about such a debate without threatening the careers of the two people who are the target of this motion.

So, it is clear that this motion is as much about our system of government as it is to do with short piling. I don't think any of us should lose sight of that, for at the core of today's debate lies a fundamental question : are we looking for solutions? Or are we determined to make someone pay? Do we want to find the fastest and most effective way to get our public housing programme back on track and restore public confidence in it? Or do we want to see heads roll? First Ms Wong, then Mr Miller? Who is next?

Madame President, I have argued that there are two issues at stake here today : the immediate questions of systems failures and the responsibility for them; and the motion of no confidence in the Chairman of the Housing Authority and the Director of Housing. Let me address them one at a time.

My colleague, the Secretary for Housing, has dealt in some detail with the chronology of events at the heart of this matter and the raft of remedial measures that have already been put in place to address them. I would simply add that there is ample evidence to suggest that we have not shirked our responsibilities. There have been two independent enquires into piling problems at Yuen Chau Kok and Tin Shui Wai; we have set up a disciplinary investigation within the civil service; the Housing Authority had itself conducted a thorough independently-led study of the Housing Department's systems and supervisory mechanisms; the Ombudsman is separately conducting an inquiry.

But let us consider the salient facts of the matter at hand. The truth is that it was the Chairman and the Director, working together, who set in motion a process of reform that in turn led to the discovery of the faults that we now know have caused so much damage to the public housing programme and public confidence in it.

This began formally at a meeting of the full Housing Authority in May 1998 when the Chairman and Director launched a drive for improved quality. This did not happen by accident. Ms Wong and Mr Miller had already identified structural weaknesses that needed to be critically examined and rectified.

There followed an intense dialogue with the industry which led ultimately to the publication of a major consultative document on reform. So, there was an awareness as far back as two years ago of challenges to be met on the wider canvas and a commitment to tackle existing and potential problems on the ground. Each problem area that was uncovered led to further checking and cross checking which led to further discoveries. It was indeed Ms Wong and Mr Miller who deliberately opened this can of worms with no thought for the consequences of such action for themselves personally. Ms Wong has paid a very high price for her sense of duty and perseverance.

Piling problems in the private sector in the summer of 1998 and allegations of malpractice on a site in Tung Chung triggered not only an investigation by the Housing Department, with the ICAC, on this site, but also a heightened alert on others. The latter involved both enhanced settlement monitoring and a thorough and systematic cross-checking of all of Housing Authority sites for any common threads e.g. work by the same contractors, sub-contractors and individual personalities. It was this detective work which first revealed similar problems in Yau Tong and led ultimately to the decision to drill all of the piles at Yuen Chau Kok. We are all aware of the results.

Madame President, I believe that any objective examination of the facts will show that the leadership of the Authority and the Department not only recognised the potential problems, but set about in a proactive and systematic manner to pinpoint and then expose them to public scrutiny. Nobody can surely suggest a cover-up. Indeed, Ms Wong and Mr Miller have from the start demonstrated a single-minded determination to root out the rotten apples from this particular barrel. On their own initiative, they inspected all the ongoing Housing Authority projects to identify quality problems, then candidly and unreservedly informed the public of their findings.

Now, having unearthed the evidence for the prosecution, so to speak, Ms Wong and Mr Miller find themselves in the dock. Is this fair?

Ms Wong and Mr Miller are two of our most capable and experienced public servants. Certainly, nobody has impugned their personal integrity. During their tenure, they have put into effect many reforms and improvements. For example, they have rationalised the allocation of housing resources to focus on those in genuine need; significantly cut the waiting time and reduced the numbers on the public housing rental waiting list; through a series of initiatives, they have widened the choice of home ownership for both rental tenants and eligible low-income families; they have enhanced service quality and efficiency as well as introducing corporate reforms.

These are no small achievements. They have had a real impact where it counts most - among the hard-working families which cannot match the going rates of the property market.

More to the point, Ms Wong and Mr Miller were in the vanguard of the strategy to implement deeper and fundamental reforms and to apply a policy of zero tolerance to the kind of problems their stringent approach has uncovered.

For these and other good reasons, I support the Chief Executive's remarks in this Chamber last Friday. In my view, it would have been much better, and eminently fairer, to allow Ms Wong and Mr Miller to finish the job they started. With Ms Wong's resignation, that will not now be possible. But it remains vitally important to maximise continuity and stability, and for that reason, Mr Miller will remain in his post. These past few months have been difficult for Mr Miller. It is to his credit that he has continued to pursue the tasks before him with commitment and quiet determination. There are many good loyal and hard working Officers in the Housing Department. They need strong compassionate leadership which Mr Miller has all along provided.

The task of finding a new Chairman for the Housing Authority will not be made any easier by the circumstances surrounding Ms Wong's departure. Indeed, one of the fallouts from this episode will be a disincentive for public-spirited citizens to take up important positions that may result in them being pilloried in the court of public opinion.

Madame President, this is not the first time this Chamber has debated the question of the accountability of the executive and of civil servants. I daresay it will not be the last. But as head of the civil service - which has, I venture to suggest, served this community conscientiously and well - I am bound to say that it will do none of us - the legislature, the executive, the public at large and certainly not the civil service - any good if we are to politicise the civil service.

Moreover, the political neutrality of the civil service is one of the most valuable assets we have, particularly in times of change and uncertainty. Our fellow citizens are attracted to join the civil service because they believe they can contribute to society free of political interference or pressure. They expect to be able to forge a career based on merit, rather than political connections.

That is not to say we are perfect. Of course we are not. We are as prone to mistakes as anyone else. But over the decades we have evolved our own systems of checks and balances to enhance efficiency and the quality of advice we give to those institutions which have the final decision-making responsibilities in our system of government. This is a collegiate civil service with a strong culture of objective yet compassionate analysis and problem-solving and a sophisticated process of consensus building. And to keep pace with the speed with which our political institutions have developed and public expectations have grown, we have refined our procedures of promotion, postings and discipline to take account of them.

I believe I can say that the dedication and commitment of civil servants today remains as strong as it has ever been. The reversion of sovereignty has presented us with new challenges and opportunities. But it would be idle to pretend that morale would not be affected, and affected seriously, if civil servants were now expected to take political responsibilities.

We operate within a system that has by convention recognised the unique politically neutral role of civil servants. It is a system designed not to preserve their rice bowls, but to protect the integrity and impartiality of civil servants in the policy-making process.

Now is not the time to move the goalposts. I know there are those who will find this unpalatable, who will claim that the events we are now debating show up the need for, say, a Ministerial system. That may well be so. But unless and until we have something different, I believe it is essential in the public interest to maintain the current system as rigorously and effectively as we can. We cannot unravel the present system if we have nothing to put in its place. Government cannot function in a vacuum.

How can the civil servants perform their duties properly and effectively with the Sword of Damocles hanging over their every decision? If we are to make civil servants politically accountable, how will it be calibrated? Will it apply only to me and the Financial Secretary for the constituent bureaux under our direct areas of responsibility? Or should I, as head of the entire civil service, be held politically responsible for all of them? Or should it apply to individual Policy Secretaries and/or Heads of Department? And their subordinates? Down to what level?

I readily concede that the present system of government is not ideal, but let us not make it worse. Let us stick by the rules of the game until they are changed and staff are aware of the changes.

We are all aware of the opportunities and constraints contained in the Basic Law. We know also that the time is rapidly approaching when the community will need to debate and consider the wider issues inherent in today's motion.

Is the present system of government satisfactory? If not, what would be better? How can we strike a better balance between the executive and legislature to remove the frustrations both sides now feel? Which system will best suit Hong Kong's particular needs as a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China?

Is it a Ministerial System, or a variation of it? Or something else altogether? And how do we preserve and enhance the political neutrality of the civil service? Above all, how do we best maintain an honest and efficient government which effectively delivers the services the public expects of it?

These are big questions that will not be answered by Ms Wong's resignation nor, for that matter, by removing Mr Miller. They will only be answered by the community reaching a consensus after a calm, well-informed and tolerant debate.

Madame President, there has been much talk in this debate about accountability. Much of it has focussed on public officials and civil servants. I am surprised that other aspects of accountability in this case have not been mentioned. Given the performance of the construction industry in this sorry tale - some people may think they are indeed the real culprits - I thought more questions would have been asked about the accountability of the industry and its professionals.

Members of the Housing Authority have generally held together extremely well, dealing with difficult issues as they arise expeditiously and decisively. I pay tribute to their dedication and sense of collective responsibility. Two chose to resign to leave themselves free to vote against their Chairman in this council today. I make no comment other than to note these differing approaches to accepting responsibility.

Finally, Madame President, I would like to pay tribute to Ms Rosanna Wong. Having seen her in close action over a long period of time, I regard her as one of the outstanding public officials of her generation. Her dedication to public causes, covering youth services, social welfare, law and order, housing and the general well-being of the community through her membership of the Legislative and Executive Councils and numerous other committees, has been unstinting. She has the courage of her convictions, boundless energy and enthusiasm and is always constructive in her approach to matters.

I have already listed some of her achievements as a thoroughly modern and reformist Chairman of the Housing Authority. Her record will long outlast the memory of this current controversy. The only consolation I take from her resignation is that she will continue to serve in the various other capacities where her counsel is sought and appreciated. As a community, we can ill-afford to lose the involvement in public life of the likes of Ms Wong.

In the past months, and especially in recent weeks, Ms Wong has, as always, conducted herself with grace, dignity and honour, even in the most difficult moments. In that sense, she is a model for us all.

In closing, I wish to reiterate that the Administration has no intention of shirking its responsibilities nor do I seek to defend blindly any of my colleagues. We take our responsibilities seriously and civil servants are well aware of the rules of the game. As a responsible Administration, we cannot unilaterally, and in the absence of a better alternative, seek to impose political responsibilities on senior officials. I therefore urge Honourable Members to reflect on the consequences for the Civil Service as a whole if this Motion is passed and to reject it and the amendment proposed by the Honourable Leung Yiu-chung.

Thank you, Madame President.

End/Wednesday, June 28, 2000

NNNN