XN000022-1997-01-22 — Page 2

-

Chief Secretary's statement

Following is the text of the statement by the Chief Secretary, Mrs Anson Chan, at the Legislative Council Select Committee today (Wednesday):

With your permission Mr Chairman, I should like to make a statement to address the concerns that have arisen in the course of this enquiry. These concerns seem to fall into four main contentions -

(a)

that the Administration has lied and misled this Committee in an attempt to cover up the reasons behind Mr Laurence Leung's sudden departure from the Civil Service.

(b)

(c)

(d)

that the reasons provided by the Administration for Mr Leung's sudden departure do not justify such harsh treatment.

that the Governor had forced the early retirement of Mr Leung for political reasons.

that sensitive information concerning the operations of the Immigration Department had been passed on to unauthorised parties by Mr Leung.

On point (a): I wish to make it clear that the Administration has not lied nor sought to mislead this Committee. All officers appearing before Members have tried to answer questions put to them as honestly as they could bearing in mind the limitations imposed by the rule of confidentiality. As the Secretary for the Civil Service, Mr W K Lam, has made clear, it is an unwritten rule well understood by all civil servants that matters discussed between an officer and the Secretary for the Civil Service concerning personal and employment matters should remain confidential and should not be divulged publicly unless and until the officer concerned consents to disclosure. Strict adherence to this rule is crucial for the good management of the Civil Service. Mr Lam gave his word to Mr Leung that he would regard Mr Leung's retirement as a personal matter between him and the Government. Despite persistent questioning he has kept his word until Mr Leung himself waived the rule of confidentiality. I can well understand Members' frustration but until that stage, Mr Lam was simply not in a position to give this Committee as comprehensive a response as you would have liked. I hope you will make allowance for the constraints facing Mr Lam and other officers who were summoned before this Committee.

Since Mr Leung chose to waive the rule of confidentiality, Mr Lam has set out clearly the reasons for contemplating action under CR 59 against Mr Leung. Our decision was based on information gathered during the ICAC investigation, reinforced by the findings of the integrity checking which Mr Leung failed. There are no other reasons for our action.