Our doubts over Financial Secretary Leung Kam-chung's integrity deepened as different versions of events in the Lexus scandal unfolded. His inability to inform the public fully, promptly and truthfully has shaken the foundation of the accountability system. His blunders over the chronology of events brought both his capability and integrity as a principal official into question. And the chief executive's decision not to accept his resignation declared the accountability system a sham.

Time and again, Mr Leung did not take the chance to disclose the facts truthfully and completely. On March 9, he failed to mention to the press that the Budget Strategy Group had provisionally agreed to the tax increase proposal in October 2002. In his report to Tung Chee-hwa on March 13, he admitted that on January 14, this group had recommended that a rise in the first registration tax on cars should be further reviewed. This was only revealed to the public on March 17. By his leaving out information which was apparently unfavourable to him, we are even more doubtful about his integrity. As to Mr Leung's account of his resignation offer, we can only regard it with scepticism. He said he verbally informed Mr Tung on March 10 that he would resign if necessary. But Mr Tung accepted it was an oversight and said it was not necessary for him to resign. Mr Leung then reconsidered his resignation and formally told Mr Tung in the evening that he still wanted to quit. Mr Leung told us he tendered his formal resignation the other day. The resignation offer was neither accounted for in Mr Leung's written report to Mr Tung on March 10, nor in Mr Tung's statement the same day. Neither did Mr Leung mention his formal resignation on March 12 in his second report to Mr Tung on March 13. Even worse, there were different versions of when he tendered his formal resignation. On April 10, Mr Leung told the Constitutional Affairs Panel that he had verbally informed Mr Tung on March 10 that he would resign if necessary. He told legislators at the same meeting that he had handed in the resignation letter to Mr Tung in person on March 11, which he had confirmed in writing to legislators on April 4. Dramatically, Mr Leung clarified a few hours after the panel meeting that instead of tendering his resignation on March 11, he actually handed it over on March 12. While Mr Leung was adamant that the resignation letter was handed to Mr Tung, his blunder over when he actually presented it raised doubts about the truthfulness of the whole story. If Mr Leung mixed things up again and again upon probes by legislators, how do we know there is not another new version? Failure to declare his purchase of a private car can be an oversight in the first place. But leaving out important information even in accounting for his own mistakes is untruthful. Mixing up the date of submitting his resignation letter may be a blunder. But the resignation was mentioned nowhere in his statements from March 10 to 14, and the letter came to light only after endless probes. Could it be bluff?

Mr Tung sought to frivolously end the Lexus scandal on March 10, saying there was no need for Mr Leung to quit even before he had tendered a written explanation and resignation letter. It was only six days after the media discovered Mr Leung's act, that Mr Tung accused Mr Leung of being "grossly negligent", and that his act constituted a breach of clauses 5.1 and 5.4 of the Code for Principal Officials under the Accountability System.

If Mr Tung concluded that it was merely an oversight and not a matter of integrity even after knowing that there is an apparent conflict of interest, is he not paying lip service to the principle of accountability?

Principal officials must at all times avoid any conflict of interest arising from the exercise of powers in a way that will affect the value of interests held. They must also refrain from using special knowledge acquired in their capacity as an official to bring benefit or avoid loss in relation to their private financial interests.

If a principal official fails to be aware of such a conflict or potential conflict of interests, he or she is unfit for the job. But it appears neither to Mr Tung nor Mr Leung that this is the case. Neither does it appear to Mr Tung that running a government should be different from running a company, and that retaining officials of dubious integrity is a matter of grave concern. Then there is the fateful information that Secretary for Health, Welfare and Food Dr E K Yeoh declared at an Executive Council meeting on March 5 when the first registration tax on cars was discussed that he had ordered a private car. How could this not ring a bell?

For matters of gross negligence, the way to restore credibility and legitimacy is to inform the public truthfully and promptly after a scandal. But, as the evidence stands, the only way out is resignation. If ex-Director of Immigration Leung Ming-yin and ex-Commissioner of Inland Revenue Wong Ho-san had to resign for failing to declare their interests truthfully, we see no reason why Mr Leung can stay in office, unless the accountability code for principal officials has less exacting standards than that governing civil servants. Mr Leung's refusal to inform us honestly and fully has plunged the whole administration into disgrace and disaster. Mr Tung's decision not to accept Mr Leung's resignation even after admitting that his act was in breach of the code dealt a final blow to the accountability system. If creditability and legitimacy is of any concern to the administration at all, resignation is the only choice left.

YEUNG SUM

Chairman of the Democratic Party and a directly elected Legislative

Councillor

[South China Morning Post, April 15, 2003]