香港申訴專員主動調查機電署升降機維修監管制度 / Office of the Ombudsman's Direct Investigation on Regulatory System of Lifts in Hong Kong

The following are my comments to Space's Aug 29, 2009 blog article "鳴冤 申訴: 申訴專員批機電署制度鬆散". To see his original text and diagram, please go to:

http://mindnecessity.blogspot.com/2009/08/09-08-27-2055-2005200815421-12345-13.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Space兄:

Thank you for the useful info and links provided in your Aug 29, 2009 blog article "鳴冤 申訴". Here are my comments, based on my limited understanding (and possibly misunderstanding) of The Ombudsman Ordinance in Hong Kong and the associated governance structure:

>> ... 申訴專員公署的“職能”... 不包括：教育市民和宣揚公義 ...也沒有宣傳教育的職級，去減少冤情冤案發生，而只是負責調查冤情冤案發生了後，去為含冤者申訴，顧此這祇是治標之法，而不能治本 ...

I agree with you that anticipating problems before they happen is better than investigating complaints after-the-fact (i.e. prevention vs control). However, I would submit that the overall responsibility to prevent problems and deliver public good in an effective and efficient manner lies with the line departments. I don't think the Office of Ombudsman would have sufficient resources and expertise to educate the public on each and every function of all government departments, agencies, and operations. As well, The Ombudsman Ordinance stipulates the independence of the heads of organizations when it comes to carrying out the latter's mandates and authorities:

條文標題：機構的首長的職責

所涉機構的首長已採取的任何行動，或該首長就有關調查所針對的任何決定而採取進一步行動的任何權力或職責，均不受該項調查影響。

While the Ombudsman is the watchdog of the community, he/she is not the watchdog of the heads of departments or crown agencies. This brings me to the distinction btwn an Ombudsman and an Auditor General.

>> .... 是誰鳴冤申訴呢？據明報報導是因為：“去年發生連串升降機事故後，申訴專員主動調查機電署升降機維修監管制度後，發現制度鬆散及執法不嚴。”顯然沒有人鳴冤，而是申訴專員主動出擊，申訴專員有沒有 overstepping 審計署的職能呢？還是與審計署的權責 overlapping 了呢？

While an Ombudsman's main job is to deal with citizen-initiated complaints (among other functions as specified in Chapter 397 The Ombudsman Ordinance and those mentioned in their website), there is no expressed prohibition (based on my cursory review of the info) to stop an Ombudsman from proactively addressing a well-publicized public concern, in this case 連串升降機事故. By grabbing the bull by the horns, the Ombudsman is mitigating simultaneously the political risk of the Chief Executive Officer行政長官 and the health/safety risk of the public. In the risk management business, the worst that could happen is for two government depts/agencies to argue over jurisdictions while people are in harm's way, hurting or even dying.

(to be continued / ombudsman vs auditor)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

References / Related Links:

* "Direct Investigation on Regulatory System of Lifts" Issue Number 2 of Reporting Year 2009/10 (27 August 2009), Office of The Ombudsman, Hong Kong http://www.ombudsman.gov.hk/ombudsnews/ombe_2_0910.pdf

* 機電署擬修例增升降機安全 http://news.gov.hk/tc/category/infrastructureandlogistics/090827/html/090827tc06005.htm

* "Lift regulations to be upgraded" Electrical and Mechanical Services Department http://www.news.gov.hk/en/category/infrastructureandlogistics/090827/html/090827en06006.htm

* Current English Ordinance and Sub. Legislations, Hong Kong http://www.legislation.gov.hk/blis_ind.nsf/WebView?OpenAgent&cap=CurAllChinDoc*1*0*-

* Chapter 397 THE OMBUDSMAN ORDINANCE

* Office of the Ombudsman, Hong Kong http://www.ombudsman.gov.hk/tc/service_areas.html