Motion Debate on Calling for the Resignation of
the Chief Executive, Mr Tung Chee-Hwa

Madam Deputy, Hong Kong was truly confronted with a crisis as a result of the recent outbreak of SARS. To Hong Kong, the problems arisen from this crisis are comparable to those brought about by the September 11 incident occurred in the United States last year. However, did anyone immediately demand President BUSH to step down? Did anyone immediately ask the mayor of New York to step down? Were the mistakes they made even more serious? From the perspective of national defence or safeguarding a city, this should not be allowed to happen in such a country as the United States. Neither should terrorists be allowed to do anything like that. However, people in the United States did not make such a request. Instead, they remained united and decided to tackle the terrorist problem first.

We can see that the SARS situation has resulted in sharp falls in businesses for many businessmen as well as losses of jobs for many people. The Financial Secretary is still meeting with political parties to discuss ways to relaunch the economy. All people from the pro-democracy camp, in support of this move taken by the Financial Secretary, have also taken part in the discussions. Should we stop creating polarization today and is it not the most critical moment and so we must not throw ourselves into confusion? Should we try our best to support the Government to resolve this crisis and tackle the SARS situation? I would like to appeal to democrats to concentrate their energy today on dealing with this matter.

As for the problems concerning Mr TUNG, democrats have always been advocating "anti-TUNG" campaigns. There were such campaigns last year and the year before. Will there be any difference if the campaign is slightly postponed? A similar motion can be moved next year so that we can debate on the issue again. Madam Deputy, Mr Albert CHAN cited so-called 19 sins when speaking on the motion, and he was criticized by Mr NG Leung-sing, with whom I agree to a considerable extent. Perhaps owing to inadequate time, all the 19sins cited by Mr CHAN are merely slogans of one sentence or two. Chanting slogans in this way is definitely appealing. The Chief Executive made a mistake when members of the public could not afford to buy a flat because of exceedingly high property prices. He must have made another mistake when sharp falls in property prices led to negative equity. The Government made yet another mistake now that the economic environment is so bad and still it fails to spend a large sum of money to create 108,000 posts to prevent the unemployment rates from rising further. Should tax be raised after spending such a large sum of money on creating so many job opportunities? Yet the Government will be considered making another mistake should it decide to raise tax. So what should the Government do? Can the Democratic Party do it better if it is be allowed to do the same job?

Madam Deputy, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong kept on sidetracking when citing a few items earlier. I think the focus of his speech was really on direct election and democracy. Mr CHEUNG raised this question: Why were government officials behaved so confidently and all in smile when Chris PATTEN attended the Question and Answer Session in this Council in his capacity as governor? It is all because government officials were not required to do anything at that time. Governor PATTEN cared about nothing but politics. When he answered questions — I believe Members agree with me too — he would first take us "strolling around the gardens" and bring us back after much rambling. Then an entire hour would be passed. In contrast, Mr TUNG, being a more pragmatic person, usually answers questions in a pragmatic manner. Government officials certainly realize that he is replying to the questions raised by giving real answers. As such, they must pay attention to what he says for they might need to sort things out should he answer incorrectly.

This is what happened. In my opinion, insofar as a politician is concerned — Members should realize that Governor PATTEN was a politician and he was very good at making a talk show. It is impossible to demand Mr TUNG to master the skill of making a talk show because he is simply not a politician. I will on the contrary concur with those people who criticize Mr TUNG for failing to do so. For unlike such a brilliant politician as Governor PATTEN, Mr TUNG is not good at making a talk show. Our choices really depend on whether we prefer a person who likes making a talk show or one who really wishes to get things done to lead the Government.

Madam Deputy, we absolutely agree that the Government can handle a number of tasks better while tackling the epidemic this time. However, can much of what we do today to reflect on this incident be described as merely an attempt of being wise in retrospect? Do we mean to accuse others of failing to do this and that at that time? We do have the experience of handling other situations such as the airport incident, substandard piling incident, and so on. We have handled a lot of matters before; at least we know how to handle them. However, not a single government official has the experience of tackling SARS. Notwithstanding this, the Liberal Party entirely concurs with criticisms concerning the ways the matter was dealt with initially, on work priority, things not done properly, and so on.

So, what is the objective of the democrats or the Democratic Party in proposing to set up an investigation team — not a select committee — to first examine the course of the incident? If its objective is to investigate into the matter so that the epidemic, touch wood, can be handled better should it mutate and stage a comeback in future, we will certainly give our full support. However, if it is made clear at the outset that it seeks merely to achieve such purposes as witch hunting, casting a vote of no confidence or demanding someone to resign, then the Liberal Party would prefer acting more slowly and considering the matter carefully before making a decision. We should first examine whether evidence is available to support such allegations as those we find in the substandard piling incident. A select committee should definitely be set up to investigate into the matter if there is truly evidence that shows that government officials have done something wrong. For instance, an official or a doctor was found giving assurances by telling nurses direct that everything would be fine, that it was unnecessary for them to wear any protective gear, and that he would be responsible for any cases of death and so on.

Today, we still consider it absolutely unnecessary for a select committee to be set up to investigate into the matter. Insofar as this point is concerned, I note that the United Kingdom adopts the same approach too. Though it will conduct investigations with respect to aviation accidents, it will make it clear that the purpose of the investigation is not witch hunting. If some people are found during the investigation to be negligent, they will naturally be forced to resign.

As such, I would like to appeal to democrats that we absolutely agree with the proposal of investigating into the matter to enable us to do better when facing similar situations in future. I hope everyone who takes part in the investigation (including doctors and nurses) can tell us what had really happened and not to be afraid of victimizing anyone if they say something wrong. For instance, one should not fear that a nursing officer might be victimized because she might have failed to instruct her subordinates to perform a certain task or fear that a doctor might be victimized because he might have failed to mention something in the course of treating the disease. People will tell us what they know frankly only when they do not have to worry that someone might be victimized as a result of what they say. Only in so doing can we understand the matter in greater detail in the course of curbing SARS and cope with our work better in future.

Madam Deputy, the Liberal Party opposes this motion.