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

Following is the speech (English only) by the Chief Secretary for Administration, Mr Donald Tsang, in the motion debate on the motion moved by the Hon Margaret Ng in the Legislative Council today (May 7):

Madam President,

I rise to speak against this motion.

There are times when many of us in this chamber have done something we wish we have not done, have said something we wish we have not said, have behaved in a way which cause us much embarrassment and regret.

Within the confines of our homes, or within our circle of friends and colleagues, these transgressions come and go on a daily basis. It is in our nature to make mistakes. We apologise. Hopefully, we learn from those mistakes. And we move on.

For those of us in public office - and in this group I include Honourable Members and Principal Officials - the highest standards of personal behaviour and integrity are expected of us. We must be honest, impartial, selfless in public duty and responsive. We must be responsible and accountable. And we must comply with relevant rules and procedures. These are the values that underpin our system of government because these are the values embedded in our society.

Our words, our deeds, our actions are rightly under close scrutiny by the public and the media. Those of us in public office cannot walk away from our mistakes or blunders without a thorough account of what led to, or caused, the mistake. To attempt otherwise would undermine the values that we hold dear, as well as public trust in the office or position that we hold.

Indeed, this Council plays an important constitutional role in scrutinising government policies or decisions, as well as holding the government and the Principal Officials to account. Today, Honourable Members have exercised these powers during the debate of this particular motion, just as they have on previous occasions when this matter was discussed in great detail in the Constitutional Affairs Panel, and the House Committee.

I do not need to recount what happened in relation to this incident. But I do wish to highlight several points that, to me, show why this motion is not justified and should not be supported.

The first is the principle of accountability. It obliges a Principal Official to give an account of his actions and be responsible for their consequences. In this case, the Financial Secretary has done both. He has done so willingly. He has provided Honourable Members, and members of the media, with the details of his car purchase. He readily responded to requests for information from Honourable Members. He has admitted that his actions were highly inappropriate. He has accepted the Chief Executive's conclusion that his behaviour amounted to gross negligence. He has accepted the Chief Executive's formal criticism of his actions. He has apologised most sincerely to the public for those actions. He has donated to charity the difference of the taxes involved. And he offered to resign - an offer declined by the Chief Executive after consideration of all the facts, and the vitally important task ahead for the Financial Secretary to balance the books and revive our economy. A job that, we all know, has since become even more difficult because of the SARS crisis. It is therefore fair to say that the Financial Secretary has been held to account, and punished for what he has done.

The second and most important consideration is that of integrity. Central to this issue is whether the Financial Secretary acted to seek personal gain in purchasing a new vehicle. He has assured the Chief Executive that this was not the case. He has given the same assurance to Honourable Members, as well as members of the media and the public. After consideration, the Chief Executive accepted the Financial Secretary's explanation.

The Financial Secretary has explained that he tried to draw a line between his private and public life. Those of us in public office - many of us in this chamber - will know how difficult that is to do. The line between our public and private lives often becomes blurred, if not erased, once we assume the responsibility to work for the public good. This incident has shown us that when we assume a position of trust in government we must assume that there is no line between our public and private lives.

It may have been rather unrealistic of the Financial Secretary to think that he could make such a distinction, given the high-profile nature of his job and the intense media curiosity in his marriage and the birth of his child. By his own admission, there was a lapse in his judgment. This lapse led to a breach of the code of conduct for Principal Officials. But this breach was the result of negligence rather than calculated deceit. It was a sin of omission, rather than a sin of commission.

While in this connection, the Honourable Emily Lau referred to the ICAC investigation into this incident. She raised the possibility of the Chief Executive intervening in the investigation. Let me make it abundantly clear in this chamber that the Chief Executive had done nothing of the sort, and we never do so. The ICAC investigation is proceeding on its course and the Commissioner of ICAC will put a full report on the investigation in its usual vigorous way to the Director of the Prosecution and the ICAC Operation Review Committee.

My third and final point is this: Where does this motion take us? How does this motion, if passed, help us all to get on with the business of government, particularly the pressing economic and public health problems we are facing? The answer is: it takes us nowhere. The debate today has not shed any new light on what we already know. The debate today has not provided us with any arguments or insights that we have not heard before. The debate today has not convinced the administration that the punishment handed down to the Financial Secretary in March was not appropriate, or reasonable.

However, the debate today has shown that clean and accountable government is a cornerstone of our society. It has shown us that the values I mentioned earlier are tremendously important to the people of Hong Kong; and that those of us in positions of trust must not only cherish and hold those values, but defend them vigorously. Not just during a debate such as this, but every day in every decision and every action we take, and during every breath we draw.

Madam President, the Financial Secretary has an enormous task ahead of him to restore fiscal balance and revive the economy. This is not an enviable task. The Financial Secretary has the confidence to accomplish this task. The Financial Secretary's Budget proposals - drawn up after consultations with a wide cross-section of the community, including members of this Chamber - have laid out a clear strategy and clear targets to meet this task. He should be allowed to get on with this job. A successful vote of no confidence in the Financial Secretary would be highly disruptive, and would deflect attention away from more pressing matters at hand. It is time to move on.

The Financial Secretary has stated that he wants to work with the utmost dedication and sincerity to successfully restructure the economy and work for the public good. He has learnt from his mistake. He deeply understands that he has injured public trust in himself as well as the Government. But he is determined to rebuild that trust.

Indeed, this incident has shown that all Principal Officials must strive to build and nurture public trust day in, day out, as we grapple with the many and varied challenges that face government and our community. This is the time for solidarity. In this regard, the community has shown remarkable generosity of spirit, grace and wisdom. Our people's daily refrain is for unity at this time of unusual adversity. They ask us, officials and legislators, to concentrate on resolving the urgent fiscal and social issues at hand. They urge us to encourage and honour the strong sense of duty and heroism being displayed in the public service everyday. They implicitly tell us to put aside whatever differences we may harbour in countering our current problems.

I would ask Honourable Members now to allow the Financial Secretary to get on with the vitally important tasks ahead of him and to continue serving the people of Hong Kong.

I urge all of you to vote against this motion.

End/Wednesday, May 7, 2003

NNNN