帳委會報告明出爐 「強烈譴責」民航處長
民航處長羅崇文的多項管理問題被揭發出來，可謂香港政府官僚制度前所未有的失敗。政府官員顢頇無能而身居高位的，一向都比較少，平庸還可以，瀆職者如這處長也確少有。我不是講涉及逾15億元的新空管系統問題，那可以因為是能力平庸而低估了新系統的複雜性引致，以紀律處分已足夠，我所指的是他擅自在新大樓擴建共約1.6萬呎預留空間，其中約3千呎預留空間更改為太極班埸地，職員逢星期三中午可齊習太極，處長老婆亦有參加，這方面就不應以紀律處分，而考慮以刑事檢控。告乜？這是以權謀私，應考慮做佢公職人員行為不當Misconduct in Public Office。
在高級警司冼錦華案(FACC14/2004)，終審法院對「公職人員行為失當」罪釋義，由非常設法官Anthony Mason對此罪訂下5個元素：
(1) a public official;
(2) in the course of or in relation to his public office;
(3) wilfully misconducts himself by act or omission (for example, by wilfully neglecting or failing to perform his duty);
(4) without reasonable excuse or justification; and where
(5) such misconduct is serious, not trivial, having regard to the responsibilities of the office and the office-holder, the importance of the public objects which they serve and the nature and extent of the departure from those responsibilities.
雖然羅崇文的行為沒有貪污成份，跟高級警司冼錦華免費召妓性質很不一樣，也並非警司黃冠豪那種吃便宜餐的情況，我也覺得「公職人員行為失當」罪5大元素俱在，絕對有合理理由交重案組作刑事調查。羅崇文的行為，已明顯存在nonfeasance及misfeasance。當然，我這建議無先例可援，近年見到這些高官的行徑，以前也未見過。英國這套官僚制度，使行政有規可依，行之有效。很多行政事情，在各部門的行政主任，都會告訴你有甚麽不能做，都要按CSB(Civil Service Branch)所訂的規則而行。羅崇文這些行為得逞，制度敗壞，可見一斑。民航處起碼有個DS(Departmental Secretary)是EO系統的人，怎會讓事情發展成這樣才揭發出來？
羅崇文不是AO出身，而是一直由Air Traffic Contoller做起的departmental grade的人，這種專業部門，通常都不會空降處長，替公務員制度把關的一般都只是職級比他低，表現評核報告(appraisal report)由他endorse的DS，為了自身利益和仕途，也可能會對長官意志加以遷就，才搞到今時的惡果。儆惡懲奸，一於向他開刀，以振綱紀，還待何時。
【明報專訊】民航處先後被揭發多項管理問題，包括擅自擴建新總部樓面面積，審計報告去年揭發民航處以逾15億元購入的新空管系統出現多項問題，令系統延遲至少3年半才可啟用，立法會政府帳目委員會經過約半年，包括6次公開聆訊事件，決定明日發表報告。綜合消息指出，報告將嚴辭批評民航處長羅崇文，包括用上「強烈譴責（strongly condemn）」及「痛斥」等字眼，較前年處理前廉政專員湯顯明時用上「譴責」、「痛斥」更嚴重。.....
(2/6/2015 明報節錄)民航處長羅崇文的多項管理問題被揭發出來，可謂香港政府官僚制度前所未有的失敗。政府官員顢頇無能而身居高位的，一向都比較少，平庸還可以，瀆職者如這處長也確少有。我不是講涉及逾15億元的新空管系統問題，那可以因為是能力平庸而低估了新系統的複雜性引致，以紀律處分已足夠，我所指的是他擅自在新大樓擴建共約1.6萬呎預留空間，其中約3千呎預留空間更改為太極班埸地，職員逢星期三中午可齊習太極，處長老婆亦有參加，這方面就不應以紀律處分，而考慮以刑事檢控。告乜？這是以權謀私，應考慮做佢公職人員行為不當Misconduct in Public Office。
在高級警司冼錦華案(FACC14/2004)，終審法院對「公職人員行為失當」罪釋義，由非常設法官Anthony Mason對此罪訂下5個元素：
(1) a public official;
(2) in the course of or in relation to his public office;
(3) wilfully misconducts himself by act or omission (for example, by wilfully neglecting or failing to perform his duty);
(4) without reasonable excuse or justification; and where
(5) such misconduct is serious, not trivial, having regard to the responsibilities of the office and the office-holder, the importance of the public objects which they serve and the nature and extent of the departure from those responsibilities.
雖然羅崇文的行為沒有貪污成份，跟高級警司冼錦華免費召妓性質很不一樣，也並非警司黃冠豪那種吃便宜餐的情況，我也覺得「公職人員行為失當」罪5大元素俱在，絕對有合理理由交重案組作刑事調查。羅崇文的行為，已明顯存在nonfeasance及misfeasance。當然，我這建議無先例可援，近年見到這些高官的行徑，以前也未見過。英國這套官僚制度，使行政有規可依，行之有效。很多行政事情，在各部門的行政主任，都會告訴你有甚麽不能做，都要按CSB(Civil Service Branch)所訂的規則而行。羅崇文這些行為得逞，制度敗壞，可見一斑。民航處起碼有個DS(Departmental Secretary)是EO系統的人，怎會讓事情發展成這樣才揭發出來？
羅崇文不是AO出身，而是一直由Air Traffic Contoller做起的departmental grade的人，這種專業部門，通常都不會空降處長，替公務員制度把關的一般都只是職級比他低，表現評核報告(appraisal report)由他endorse的DS，為了自身利益和仕途，也可能會對長官意志加以遷就，才搞到今時的惡果。儆惡懲奸，一於向他開刀，以振綱紀，還待何時。
其實太極班並沒有一個專用場地。他們只是利用室內一個還没有劃為辦公室的地方"物盡其用"而巳。當然，擅自擴建預留空間絕對是大錯。
回覆刪除I feel that charging "公職人員行為失當" is a bit over in this case. Just like you mentioned, this is quite different from other cases where public servant took "tanguble benefits". Afterall, one can argue that the space is part of employee benefit, which aims to improve the overall health of employees, just like some private sector companies will also provide space for coffee shop / canteen in order to improve working environment. I think the key arguement here is that the source of the money, as they are using tax payor's money, it becomes a sensitive topic in HK. If you ask me, I will say this is a case of "lack political sense" in stead of 公職人員行為失當. Otherwise, I think many shareholders of public trade companies can sue the company CEOs for corruption.
回覆刪除P
Maybe I am too tough and adopt a hawkish approach. If you look at all the things he did including the building of private shower, he squandered too much of the tax payers money. A misconduct in public office charge is not too much.
刪除no arguement there. What he did is ridiculous. for the shower, i thnk it is similar case as Timothy Tong, while he can argue the shower will benefit future chefs (so not benefiting himself alone), i suspect he will have a hard time to justify the necessarily of it. Maybe they are waiting to see what they can charge Timothy Tong with first, then see how it goes.
刪除P
Should do some research on the civil service regulations before pointing to the "shower" too seriously. In the older days, department heads (not sure if all of them) were entitled to an ensuite bathroom (shower and toilet) in his/her office. Don't know if this benefit has been removed or not.
刪除I know this because when my department moved to the new building in the 1990s, there was an ensuite bathroom available for the department head's use. The head, opposite to LO, prefer more office space to a bathroom. The ensuite bathroom was subsequently knocked down.
I would see the matter from a macro-cosmic point of view and decide on the cumulative effects of dereliction of duty.
刪除Bill you may have already written an article on Donald Tsang. Obviously, you should consider Tsang to be even more prosecutable. Ian Cross is very anxious about this.
刪除Oh yes. It is only a matter of whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute Tsang. His kind of case is always difficult to collect evidence. Grenville Cross is really anxious about the case. I can see that he sent letters to Mingpao and Orientally Daily from time to time.
刪除