An HKFP op-ed protests the deletion of Ombudsman’s Office online archives…
…the reports point out how departments have passed the buck, not taken responsibility, and how officials and citizens both exploit legislative loopholes. The issues not only annoy residents but also cause frustration, dissatisfaction, and disputes both among citizens and between citizens and government departments.
From these reports, we can judge the extent to which government departments learn, improve, and become sensitive to problems previously ignored. Insofar as they do, these are good stories for Hong Kong.
With only reports from 2023-24 onwards available, neither the public nor LegCo may be aware that some recent problems have long histories.
HKFP story quotes former secretary for the civil service Patrick Nip…
“Reports and surveys published by government bureaux and departments, public organisations, and independent commissions are important references,” he said in a Facebook comment replying to veteran journalist Lam Miu-yan’s post on the Ombudsman’s decision.
“Unless there are special reasons, they must be properly preserved and made easily accessible to the public,” Nip added.
RTHK (no stranger to wiping reminders of its former editorial independence) puts the official case…
The Office of The Ombudsman said on Monday that it has removed investigation reports that are “no longer up to date” from its website, saying that old reports could contain information that misleads the public.
In the statement, the Ombudsman said it reviews content on its website from time to time to ensure its accuracy and relevance, noting “only [reports] from the past three years” are being retained on its website following the latest update.
But also adds that several legislators are voicing disquiet over the move.
The Ombudsman issues a statement saying you can fax or email them to retrieve deleted material. (The Wayback Machine should also have copies of older material, if you can find them.)
What no-one is asking is what exactly the department might be trying to hide. As mentioned yesterday, the Transport Dept has also been reported as deleting embarrassing online records.
One to watch: the Audit Commission, which also highlights government failures, still has all its reports since 1999 online.
What is not being discussed is the sneaky manner in which the Ombudsman records were removed. No notice was given allowing time for interested parties to download reports of interest.
The statement that “old reports could contain information that misleads the public” should be challenged as they are factual records of circumstances at a given moment in time.
The Ombudsman has always adopted a lenient attitude towards malfeasance on the part of government departments so the inevitable conclusion is that the move is intended to deprive the community of historical records with background detail on issues of long standing public concern that remain unresolved.
For sure the Development Bureau wants the 2024 report on the proliferation of brownfield operations in NT to be buried soonest as it actively supports applications for this land use that breach both current regulations and Policy Address statements and it overrides the opposing views provided by departments of a Lesser God.
https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202410/24/P2024102400202.htm#:~:text=The%20Office%20of%20The%20Ombudsman's,effect%20on%20some%20repeated%20offenders.
A cynic would opine that the failure of its reports to achieveme improvements in accountability are probably the core motive for expunging the files.
I’m surprised no one noticed the greenwashing operation by the airport authority with the support of a so-called “Reef Check” association that turns out the be the AFCD in disguise
https://www.hongkongairport.com/en/media-centre/press-release/2025/pr_1778
If only there was somewhere in the government we could go to complain about this.
Surely there is some independent body that investigates government officials deleting public records, and making the difficult to view.
Oh. wait a moment …..
How can they rewrite history if there is documentation proving that their new narrative/history is completely fabricated? It had to be done.