144
26.11.86
8.30 - 12.15 p.m.
Date:
Time:
Reporter:
MEP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
D of Ar. S: The first part of your statement. I share your view 100%.
MR CHEONG: That is in relation to your $4.8 million
that you are in fact saving money. What I am saying is, the end does not justify the means.
D of Ar. S: The performance of the consultants have now been very carefully monitored. We have instituted confidential reports on projects they are carrying and they don't they cannot expect jobs constantly pouring into their plate, it is not the case. We do monitor them. We do have disciplinary procedures and it is not from now on, but it has been instituted. Probably after this -- we are talking about 1975, 1973 at the time when we hired the consultant, but we have now very comprehensive procedures to deal with situations
such as this.
21
22
2 2 2 2
23
25
26
MR CHEONG:
Well, what really worries me and I keep
on pressing the point, was that in paragraph 142 of the Director of Audit's Report the very last sentence of that paragraph, in your own in-house team report which you have just agreed that the performance of the consultant leaves a lot to be desired, yet no
recommendation was made about actions to be taken against the consultants, and legal advice was not sought. That worries me.
That really in fact -- I mean in a clear case like this to laymen and even now to you as a professional, that they have not done their job and yet no recommendation was made. I certainly hope that this sort of attitude of afraid about consultants would be wiped off
clean.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
138.
35
36
D of Ar. S:
Agree.
MR CHUNG:
Mr Director, may I refer you to paragraph
Here the investigation report appears to have concurred that there is negligence on the part of the contractor. May I know whether consideration is being given to taking legal action to recover