MR CHAN CHUN-YING (in Cantonese):
President, I would first like to explain that two fellow schoolmates I know well have joined the Correctional Services Department (“CSD”) successively after finishing tertiary education. One of them kept serving the Department until his retirement. On and off, they may mention their daily work in gatherings with friends. I feel from their sharing that they truly wanted to make good effort with their correctional undertakings, which means bringing not only punishment but also re-education to offenders. Moreover, I also know that CSD endeavours to establish partnership with various sectors of the community to provide supports to rehabilitated persons, and cooperates with different employers, business organizations and statutory bodies to find jobs for ex-offenders so that they can integrate into the community as soon as possible. Therefore, the picture I have got from my understanding about CSD staff members’ work may be somewhat different from the impression that some fellow Members mentioned just now. Nevertheless, I will take a neutral stance in considering this motion. Today, Dr Fernando CHEUNG has moved a motion under Articles 73(5) and 73(10) of the Basic Law. I believe that he is looking for a genuine way out for the complaints from some persons in custody. Just now, Dr Elizabeth QUAT pointed out in her speech that eight Members received the complaint from the Society for Community Organization at the Public Complaints Office on 28 December. While I was one of those connection, Members requested them to provide substantial information and written consent to facilitate Members’ follow-up on the issues with the Administration at the case conference. Members also said at the meeting that if the deputation suspected or claimed that CSD staff had received advantages, taken bribes, abused power for personal gains, committed offence of misconduct in public office or involved in such accusations as assault and intimidation, the deputation should report with information to the Independent Commission Against Corruption (“ICAC”) and the Police Force respectively.
President, I hereby declare that I am a member of both the Operations Review Committee and the Panel of the Witness Protection Review Board of ICAC. I believe that similar issues are involved in all the cases brought up for ICAC’s handling that I touch upon regularly. Hence, I agree very much with the query of several pro-establishment Members made in their speeches, which was whether summoning the Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Correctional Services was the best way if we wanted to be more focused to deal with Dr Fernando CHEUNG’s matter about helping the inmates. Or will it be better to make use of the current mechanism, which will be more effective? In particular, when the case involves more than one relevant department, I suspect very much whether summoning only the Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Correctional Services would be the most effective channel to solve the problem. President, with my brief speech, I have to state expressly that I do not support the motion moved by Dr Fernando CHEUNG. I hope to find out a more effective solution after looking into the matter deeply via the existing mechanism of the Legislative Council.
I so submit.