THE HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Special Issue May 1992 An Internal Communication
Replies to the written questions asked by the Public Accounts Committee
Sir
S. Y.
CHUNG, former ~hairman of the HKUST Planning Committee
8 May 1992
Q
(a) (i) Who was ultimately responsible for the wording of the rules of the competition and in particular clause 2.27?A
(ii) Was it drafted by a lawyer? If so, by whom?
The Capital Works
am
Building Projects (CWBP) Sub-Committee, chaired by Dr N. K. Chan, was given the task of recommending to the HKUST Planning Committee (PC) the appointment of architects and professional consultants for the preparation and ex-ecution of a master campus development plan. To carry out this task the CWBP Sub-Committee decided to organise and run an architectural competition.The setting of the competition rules was done by the CWBP Sub-Committee and was based on the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) code of practice, the guidelines for promoters of architectural competition by HMO Department of Environment, competition rules used by City Polytechnic in 1983, as well as in consultation with the Hong Kong Institute of Architects (HKIA). However, legally speaking, it is presumed that the HKUST PC, as the promoter of the competition, would be ultimately responsible for the competition rules.
These competition rules, as I understand now, were not drafted by a lawyer.
Q
(b) According to yourunderstanding of the situation, if Dr N. K. Chan had not purportedly on behalf of the Assessment Panel invited the Planning Com-mittee to consider both the winner of the compe-tition and the runner-up for adoption as the blue-print for the University, would you as chairman of the Planning Committee have invited the Com-mittee to consider any submission other than the winner picked by the Assessment Panel?
A
It was well understood at the outset (end of 1986), as recorded in the minutes of the first meeting of the Capital Works and Building Projects (CWBP) committee, that it was not necessary for the Sub-committee to confine its recommendations for the Planning Committee (PC) to the firm of architects submitting the winning design in the competition. It was also the understanding of the PC that it had no obligation to adopt the winner of the competition for the campus design, as recorded in the minutes of its Second Plenary Session held in January 1987. DrN. K. Chan in his other capacity as chainnan of the CWBP Sub-Committee could, ifhe wished, recom-mend to the PC both the winner and runner-up de-signs. Any member of the PC could also propose to consider the runner-up or indeed any of the six de-signs picked for the stage-II competition. As chair-man of the PC, I too could have done so, if I wished. In any way, the question is a speculative one.Q
(c) (i) Do you know who is responsible for the drafting of the TUPC Paper 28/87 dated 20 November 1987 entitled "HKUST Architec-tural Competition Stage II, the Assessment Panel's Recommendation"?(ii) Did you have any part to play in the prepara-tion of that paper?
A
I was informed by the former Secretary-Generalof the Planning Committee (PC) that the TUPC Paper28/87 of20 Nov 1987 was drafted by the Chief Professional Adviser of the Secretariat under the direction of the chairman of the Assessment Panel, Dr Chan. The Chief Professional Adviser was sec-onded from the Government's Architectural Serv-ices Department. Dr Chan was concurrently the chairman of the Capital Works and Building Projects (CWBP) Sub-Committee, which was responsible for making recommendations to the PC for the cam-pus design.
I did not play any part in the preparation of that paper.
Q
(d) The Press Release dated 20 Nov 1987 states "theAssessment Panel set up by the Planning Com-mittee had selected a winner and runner-up". Dr Chan had now gone on record in his letter of 28 Feb 1992 to the PAC, that "the question of a runner-up was not discussed". Professor Maki' s letter of 22 Dec 1987 confirmed that: "we have not specified a runner-up scheme following the winner scheme J". Mr Jose Lei's account in the
3rd Hearing of the PAC confirmed that. In the
circumstances, do you not think that this state-ment in the Press Release was misleading?
A
I was informed by the fonner Secretary-General(SG) of the Planning Committee (PC) that on the morning of20 Nov 1987 a draft TUPC Paper 28/87
was faxed to Mr J. Lei, as a local member of the
Assessment Panel (AP), seeking his comments on the paper. No comment was received from him and
it was reasonable to assume that he did not object to the draft.
It should also be noted that Professor Maki had stated in his letterof22 Dec 1987 that members of the
AP had delegated the full authority to their chairman,
Dr Chan, to draft their report. It was therefore up to
Dr Chan to use the ranking of the design submissions made by members of the AP and exercise his own judgement in drafting the report. In the circum-stances as described above, the statement in the Press Release could not be considered as misleading.
Q
(a) (i) Why was it necessary to have the views ofthe Planning Committee made known to the Assessment Panel (AP) if the AP was ex-pected only to pick the winner of the com pe-tition and the Planning Committee (PC) was to have a free choice of the architect for the project?
A
(ii) Why was Dr Werner invited by the PC to attend the 15th Nov meeting? Was a similar invitation extended to the other members of the AP?
In clause 2.27 of the competition there is a
sentence ''The competition has been designed in such a way that the chances of the winning architect being considered suitable for appointing as the project architect are maximised." Making known to the AP the views of the PC is a genuine attempt of the PC to maximise the chances of appointing the winning architect as the project architect.
Dr Werner was a member of the University and Polytechnic Grants Committee (UPGC) and
addi-May 1992
tionally a member of the UPGC' s Sub-Committee on HK UST. Dr Werner was also the fonner president of a technological university in Australia. He was invited to assist Dr N. K. Chan to convey the views of the PC to members of the Assessment Panel. I did not recall other invitations.
3
Q
(c) (i) Was it unequivocally made known to the members of the Planning Committee on the 20 and 21 Nov 1987 that they could legitimately under the rules ignore the expectations of the winnerof the competition and choose submission "L" as the blueprint for the University?(ii) Was your attention specifically drawn to clause 2.27 of the rules of the competition?
Q
(b) (i) Before the meeting on 20 and 21 Nov 1987,did you know any of the partners of the Simon
Kwan and Percy Thomas Partnership?
A
Members of the Planning Committee (PC) should have known at the outset that the PC had the right to use another design apart from the winner of the competition. This was based on the fact that at the Second Plenary Session of the Planning Committee heldon5 and 6January 1987, Dr Chan in his capacity as the Chainnan of the Capital Works and Building Projects Committee reported that the Sub-committee had agreed that the finn submitting the winning design should not automatically be awarded the architectural contract.(ii) Did you have any working, business, or social relationship with them or any of them?
A
Hong Kong is a very small place and its social circles are also very small. With my involvement in both business and community service for more than 30 years it would be difficult for me to say with certainty whether I had or had not known, or had or not had any business or social relationship with, the partners of any of the architects taking part in the competition.Nonetheless, I have known HKU Professor K. C. Lye, the winning architect, since 1983 when I was chainnan of the City Polytechnic Planning Commit-tee. ProfLye was an assessor for the City Polytechnic architectural competition. I believe most local mem-bers of the AP know memmem-bers of the many design submissions in the competition. I am certain that all local members of the Assessment Panel know Profes-sor Lye of the winning design. I understand ProfesProfes-sor Maki, another assessor, was at one time the external examiner for HKU School of Architecture and there-fore should know many of the HKU members serving on the winning design team.
I also know the finn of Percy Thomas, which was a partner of Mr W. N. Chung, the architect of the winning design of the 1983 City Polytechnic compe-tition. Mr Chung is a local assessor of the HKUST competition.
This question appears to imply that I would let my social contacts influence my judgement. I must strongly object to that implication.
Following the announcement on 21 Nov 1987 of the PC's decision to use the runner-up design, the winning architect lodged a protest to the PC. As a result, the PC sought legal opinion from the Crown Counsel, who readily confinned the right of the PC to use the runner-up design.
Yes, I was aware of the clause 2.27 in the competition rules.
Q
(d) Would you agree that Dr Woo was the most vocal member against submission "J" and in favour of submission "L"? Were you influenced by his advocacy?A
DrC. W. WoowasatthattimetheHKUSTVice-Chancellor (Designate). He has been the President of San Francisco State University foranumberofyears, and has good experience in campus management and university administration. He was also the first Chinese to attain the high position of presidency of a State university in the USA. The Vice-Chancellor is both出eChief Executive Officer and 由eChief Academic Officer of the University and, as such, Dr Woo's views on the campus design would naturally ca叮y
weight and command respect. As chairman of the Planning Committee (PC), I did expect a great deal of contribution from Dr Woo on 血is subject. As the founding Vice-Chancellor, Dr Woo would have failed in his responsibility if he did not express a strong opinion. In retrospect, Dr Woo should have been made a member of the AP as 扭曲e C部eof the City Polytechnic competition in which the Director (Designate) w品 amember of the Assessment Panel. Any one who has knowledge and experience in committee work would no doubt know 血at 血eprime objective in committee meetings is to hear others
’
。pinionsand to persuade o血ersto accept one's own views. On this particular su吋e仗， Ifound his views, generally s伊拉ing,consistent wi血 thoseof mine.Q
(e)At 血emeet恤gof血ePlanni
20 Nov, the views expressed were quite diverse. But there was a unanimous decision on 血e
following day in r吋ecting submission “J”，也e winnerof the competition in favourof submission
“
L’,.(i) Did you 叫k to any other member of the Planning Committee or any consultant or other persons between the two meetings? (ii) What were your reasons in 肥:jectingthe
win-ner of the competition in spite of the clear wording of clause 2.27 of the rules of 血e
competition?
A
I doprot臼t strongly 血e
imputationof由is qu臼
tion. It is not 山1commonin any committee wo汰出atdiscussions continue informally outside m臼tings.
However, I did not talk to any member of the PC between the two meetings, ex臼pt during a brief period immediately after 出efirst meeting and a few minutes just prior to the second m白山g 品 anormal social intercourse.
As recorded in the minutes of the Fifth Plena可
Session，由ebuilding of a 凹tiversi句 campuswould be a milestone in the histoηof Hong Kong and a m吋or
decision of this natu間 shouldnot be taken too lightly. Members at the meeting ag肥叫出的自ey should reflect on 伽 matterovernight and I, as chairman of 血ePC, directed that the submissions and drawings of both the winner and runner-up should be available for inspection and study by members bo血 inthe evening and the next morning. All these we肥 properly
documented.
If some members did stay behind after the first meeting to make further studies of the two designs and in 血ecourse of doing so exchanged views inf or-mally between the two meetings, I see nothing wrong about this. What we were 昀恤gtodo w個 tofind the best campus design for the new universi可．
Ap訂tfrom those ofmy opinions recorded in the minutes of the meetings, I also shared many of the views of the Vice-Chancellor in r吋ectingthe winner
of 血ecompetition.
Q 的（i)
Was 出e summ的 of 血e m叫gs of 出e
Planning Committee on 19, 20 and 21 November 1987 approved subsequently by the Planning Committee?
(ii) Does 血is summary accurately reflect what you said? And what other people said? (iii)Is 血ereany particular detail 扭曲esummary
出atyou believe to be inaccurate? If so, what should it have been?
A
I believe the sumrris the minutes of the Fi缸h Plen訂y Session of the Planning Committee (PC). These minutes wer
e
confirmed at 血eSixth and F泊alPlenary Session o f
血ePC on 9 April 1988. It has been mo自由anfour years since the meeting took place in November 1987, and I find it difficult to answer your questions (ii) and (iii). Nonetheless, these minutes could be regarded accurate enough for the intended pu中oseof
serving 描 a brief record of events lead凶g to 血e selection of the c位npusdesign.
May 1992 5 問
笨
c:i 問公共帳目委員會書面問題
香港科技大學前籌委會主席 鐘士元爵士答問 一九九二年五月八日 請科大籌委會就比賽的冠軍和亞軍 作出決定，選擇其中一個作為大學 的建築藍圖，你作為籌委會主席， 會否請籌委會考慮選擇評審委員會 （甲）（一）誰是最後負責有關香港科技 評定為冠軍以外的作品？ 大學校園設計比賽規則，尤 其是第 2.27 節的字眼？金E支
::,
根攝基本工程及建築計劃小組委員 （二）它是否由一位律師制訂的？ 會在一九八六年舉行的第一次會議紀錄 如果是的話，他是誰？ ，該委員會同意并無必要把它向籌委會 的建議局限於比賽冠軍的設計。同時根 就有關校園建設和發展的主體計劃 攝一九八 t 年一月審委會舉行的第二次 ’及委任建築師和專業顧問的事宜，是 會議所紀錄，籌委會亦明瞭它并沒有義 交由陳乃強博士出任主席的基本工程及 務非採周冠軍設計不可。除了作為評審 建築計劃小組委員會，負責向香港科技 委員會主席，陳乃強博士作為基本工程 大學籌備委員會，提出建議。為 7 完成 及建築計劃小組委員會的主席的這另一 這個任務，基本工程及建築計劃小組委 個身份，如果他願意，他是可以同時向 員會決定舉辦一次建築設計比賽。 籌委會推荐冠軍和亞軍的設計的。而籌 比賽規則乃由基本工程及建築計劃 委會的任何一個委員，也可以向籌委會 小組委員會巨定，發照的標準包括英國 建議考慮亞軍設計或其他被挑選進入比 皇家建築師學會的規條、英國政府璟保 賽第二個階段的六個設計作品。作為科 部為建築比賽主辦者巨定的指引、城市 大籌委會主席，我也可以這樣做，如果 理工學院在一九八三年舉行的設計比賽 我認為需要的話。無論如何，這只是一 規則，與及香港建築師學會的意見。當 個假設的問題。 然，從法理上說，香港科技大學轉備委 員會作為比賽的主辦者，是訂定比賽規 則的最終負責人。 問 （丙）（一）關於一九八 t 年十一月二十 就本人所知，這些比賽規則并非由 日第三大學籌備委員會編號 一位律師所制訂。 第 28/87 的文件，題為《香港 科技大學建築設計比賽第二 階段，評審委員會的提議》 的草擬工作，是誰負責的？ （乙）根按你對情況的理解，如果陳乃強 （二）你有沒有參與該文件任何部 博士沒有代表比賽評審委員會，邀 份的草擬工作？答 香浴科技大學轉委會秘書長知會本 人，有關一九八 t 年十一月二十日第三 大學籌備委員會緝號 28月7 的文件，是由 科大籌委會秘書處的首席專業顧間，在 評審委員會主席陳乃強博士的督導下草 擬的。該位首席專業顧問乃由政府建築 事務處借調過來。當時陳乃強博士同時 擔任基本工程及建築計劃小組委員會的 主席，這個委員會負責就校園設計的問 題，向籌委會作建議。 本人并無參與該文件任何部份的草 擬工作。
問
（丁）一九八 t 年十一月二十日的新聞稿
表示：「籌委會成立的評審委員會 問 選出了冠軍和亞軍。」但陳博士在 一九九二年二月廿八日給公共帳目 委員會的信件中表示「從沒有討論 過有關亞軍的問題」 o 棋文彥教授 在一九八 t 年十二月廿二日的信件 中明確表示：「除 7 冠軍作品 J 之 外，我們并無指定亞軍作品。」事 銘根先生在公共帳目委員會第三次 聆訊中的發言，亦証實了這一點。 在這個情況下，你認為新聞稿那一 Aφ﹒ 句話是否有誤導性？ 台 答 香港科技大學籌委會前秘書長知會 本人，在一九八 t 年十一月二十日的上 午，一份有關第三大學轉備委員會編號 28月7 的文件草稿，傳真予作為評審委員 會本地評審委員之一的事銘根先生，請 他給意見。李先生并沒有表示任何意見 ，按一般理解，代表他對草稿裡的字句 不表反對。 更要注意的是，棋文彥教授在一九 八 t 年十二月廿二日的信件中指出，評 審委員會的委員，委托主席陳乃強博士 全權代表他們，草擬他們的報告。因此 ，陳博士可以按評審委員提交的評審各 蓋章賽設計的名次，并根撮他自己的判斷 ，草擬報告。在上述情況下，我不認為 新聞稿的那句話有誤導作用。 （甲）（一）既然評審委員會的職責只是 挑選冠軍作品，而籌委會可 以自行選擇校園的建築師， 為什麼籌委會還有必要把自 己的意見知會評審委員會？ （二）科大籌委會為什麼邀請韋納 博士出席十一月十五日舉行 的籌委會會議？請問會議有 否向評審委員會的其他委員 發出同樣的邀請？ 比賽規則第 2.27 節有一句話：「比賽 的設計形式是使冠軍得主有最大的機會 獲委為校園的建築師。」我們把籌委會 的意見知會評審委員會，正由於籌委會 真的希望冠軍得主會得到最大機會，成 為校園的建築師。 韋納博士既是大學及理工教育資助 委員會委員，也是該委員會屬下香港科 技大學小組委員會成員。他又是澳洲一 所科技大學的前任校長。他的被邀請， 是協助陳乃強博士向評審委員會傳達科 大籌委會的意見。我并不記得尚有邀請 其他人士。出 1992
7
問 （乙）（一）在一九八 t 年十一月二十及 而選取作品「 L 」為大學的 廿一日的會議之前，你是否 設計藍圖？ 認識關善明、唐謀士及他們 （二）當時你是否注意到比賽規則 的合伙人？ 中的第 2.27 節？ （二）你與他們是否有任何工作、 商業或社交方面的聯系？笨
l=I 科大籌委會自始便知道籌委會有權 採用冠軍以外的作品。在一九八 t 年一笨
l=I 香港是一個很小的地方，它的社交 月五及六日兩天舉行的第二次會議中， 圈子也很小。本人參與商業及社會服務 作為基本工程及建築計劃小組委員會的 工作逾三十年，我很難肯定地說我是否 主席，陳乃強博士向轉委會報告，說小 認識或不認識那些參加了設計比賽的建 組委員會同意冠軍作品獲獎人不應自動 築師（門，或與他們是否有商業或社交上 獲得承建大學建築師合約。 的閱（系。不過，對於冠軍得主，香港大 科大籌委會在一九八 t 年十一月廿 學建築系的黎錦超教授，我則是認識的 一日宣佈決定採用 E 軍作品後，比賽冠 。從一九八三年我擔任城市理工學院籌 軍的建築師曾向籌委會提出抗議。因此 委會主席開始，黎教授是城市理工學院 ，籌委會向政府律政署法律專員尋求法 建築設計比賽的評判。我相信，評審委 律意見，獲悉籌委會完全有權採用亞軍 員會的大部份本地委員亦會認識科大設 作品。 計比賽的許多套賽者。我可以肯定，評 我有注意到比賽規則中的第 2.27 節。 審委員會的所有本地委員均認識冠軍得 主黎教授。撮我所知，另一位評審委員 搞文彥教授，當擔任香港大學建築系校 外主考人，因此，對冠軍作品的許多港 問 （丁）你是否同意吳家瑋博士是當時最主 大參與者，他應該也是認識的。 張採用「 L 」作品而反對採納作品 對唐謀士合伙公司，我也是認識的 「 J 」的籌委？你是否受他的主張 ，唐謀士合伙公司曾是鍾華楠先生的合 影響？ 伙人，他們是一九八三年城市理工學院 設計比賽的冠軍得主。鍾先生亦是香港金E支
::,
吳家瑋博士當時是香港科技大學的 科技大學設計比賽的本地評審委員。 候任校長。他曾擔任三藩市州立大學校 這個問題暗示本人的社交聯系影響 長多年，對校園管理和大學行政有很好 了本人的判斷。本人強烈反對這樣的毀 的經驗。他也是第一位在美國擔任州立 謗暗示。 大學校長高職的華人。他作為校長，既 是大學的最高行政總裁，亦是學校最高 的學俯負責人。因此，具博士對校園設 計的見解當然是有份量和值得尊重的。 問 （丙）（一）在一九八 t 年十一月二十及 我作為審委會主席，正期望其博士在這 廿一日舉行的會議上，科大 方面可以作出較大的貢獻。作為創校校 籌委會的委員是否明確地知 長，其博士若不在這方面表連強烈的意 道，他們可以根攝規定，合 見，實為失職。回想起來，其校長理應 法地忽視冠軍得主的期望， 出任比賽的評審委員，就如城市理工學問 生E t:1 院的候任院長，當時亦擔任城市理工設 計比賽的評審委員。 任何對委員會工作有認識和經驗的 人士都會理解，委員會會議的主要目的 ，就是聽取別人的見解，及說服別人接 受自己的見解。在這一個校園設計問題 上，我發覺我與具校長的意見大致上并 無不同。 （成）在十一月二十日舉行的籌委會會議 中，意見頗為紛紅。但在跟苦的一 天會議中，出席者卻一致決定揭棄 比賽得獎作品「 J 」而採用作晶 「 L 」 （一）你在舉行兩個會議之間的時 間有沒有向籌委會任何成員 ，或其他顧問，或其他人士 傾談過？ （二）儘管比賽規則第 2.27 節說得那 麼清楚，你還是揚棄了得獎作 品，請問你的理由是什麼？ 本人強烈抗議這個問題的毀謗意味 。在任何委員會事務中，在會議之外的 其他時間組續非正式的討論都是常有的 。不過，在該兩個會議舉行之間的時間 ，除 7 第一個會議剛結束後的簡短時間 ，及第二個會議開始前的幾分鐘時間進 行過正常的社交性唔談之外，本人并無 與任何籌委會成員談論問題。 根草草第五次會議的紀錄，興建造所 大學的校園，是本港歷史上一個里程碑 。一個如此重大的決定，決不可輕率為 之。出席會議的籌委均同意聽該思考多 。f§ij¢的ffiPRl!V 王一
