- 2
-
4
On point (b): It has been suggested by some that non-disclosure of assets and investments and failure to repay a housing loan were mere indiscretions or technical breaches, not sufficiently serious to warrant instant dismissal or forced retirement. As head of the Civil Service, I have to say that I disagree strongly. Mr Leung has blatantly disregarded rules, despite having his attention drawn specifically to the requirements and warned of the consequences of non-compliance, that is disciplinary action or dismissal. Mr Leung headed an important disciplinary force responsible for a range of sensitive issues that could affect every man, woman and child in Hong Kong as well as overseas visitors. On his leadership depended the reputation of the entire Immigration Department, not only in the eyes of the local community but also with overseas Governments. In the course of his normal duties, Mr Leung himself would have taken Rules disciplinary action against junior officers for similar or other breaches. governing conduct and discipline apply equally to both junior and senior staff. Indeed we take a more serious view of breaches by senior staff from whom we demand a high standard of personal integrity, absolute honesty and accountable behaviour. The community would expect no less. In our view, each of the offences listed in the letter which would have been sent to Mr Leung was sufficiently serious on its own to warrant action. Taken together, they cast serious doubt over Mr Leung's integrity, character and his suitability to remain in post. These breaches and Mr Leung's failure to pass his integrity checking left us no choice but to act and to act decisively. We decided that Mr Leung must leave the service quickly. Our concern was to minimise the adverse impact on staff morale, and to avoid tarnishing the image of the Immigration Department which could in turn have undermined the confidence which other countries have in our immigration services. It was Mr Leung's own choice to retire immediately (as he was perfectly entitled to do). If Mr Leung had chosen to face action under CR 59, he would have been interdicted from duty immediately. There could be no question of his remaining in post whilst facing CR 59 proceedings. Equally, it would have been imprudent to allow Mr Leung to remain in charge of sensitive issues and systems whilst serving his period of notice, however short, given the circumstances of his departure. In this instance, it is entirely reasonable for us to require Mr Leung to leave his post with one day's notice. Indeed in the private sector, little notice is given in similar circumstances.
On point (c): As head of the Administration, the Governor is naturally consulted on any actions against senior staff. In Mr Leung's case, the Governor was kept fully in the picture but he did not at any stage issue any directive. He relied on my judgement as head of the Civil Service and I of course took into account the views of the Secretary for the Civil Service, Mr Lam and the Secretary for Security, Mr Peter Lai who was Mr Leung's immediate superior officer. We all agreed to initiate action under CR 59 unless Mr Leung chose to retire voluntarily. I wish to make it clear that no political motives were involved. The grounds for proceeding against Mr Leung have been clearly set out by Mr Lam. There are no other grounds.