Elections

Section 1	Complaint Avenues and the Complaints Committee
Section 2	The Complaints : Nature and Categories
Section 3	Handling of Complaints on the Polling Day
Section 4	Outcome of Investigations
Section 5	The Usefulness of Complaints

8.1	There were four entities to which election-related complaints could be addressed, namely, the Police, the ICAC, the ROs and the EAC or its Complaints Committee ("CC") with the REO as its executive arm.
8.2	Insofar as the EAC is concerned, the Commission established a CC to handle complaints. The CC consisted of the three members of the EAC and His Honour District Judge Stephen CHOW.
8.3	Four Vetting Groups ("VGs") were formed under the auspices of each of the four members of the CC. The roster of handling complaints by these VGs was as follows: Received on: Tuesdays and Wednesdays Vetted by: Mr. Justice Woo Received on: Thursdays Vetted by: Mr. Norman Leung Received on: Fridays Vetted by: Dr. Elizabeth Shing Received on: Saturdays and Mondays Vetted by: Judge Chow
8.4	Complaints started to come in from 7 October 1999 and the CC continued to deal with complaints received within 45 days after the DC ordinary election held on 28 November 1999, i.e. 12 January 2000. Given that at least 14 working days would be required to complete investigation into a complaint, the CC would have up to 28 January 2000 to complete its task.
8.5	The complaints procedure adopted by the EAC was included in the Guidelines published on 13 September 1999. The public in general and the electorate and candidates in particular were thus, before the commencement of the nomination period of the DC election on 7 October 1999, able to apprise themselves of the mechanism by which complaints relating to the election could be made and how these complaints would be dealt with.
8.6	A complainant could lodge his complaint direct to the CC in writing, or orally either in person or over the phone. A record would be prepared for each oral complaint. The Complaints Unit of the REO studied the complaints, obtained additional information where necessary, and produced summaries of the complaints with observations and recommendations for the consideration of the respective VG. The complaints vetted with proposed recommendations by the VGs were then passed to the CC for consideration and endorsement.
8.7	Vetting of the cases by the CC was usually done by circulation of the papers and exchange of views among the members in lieu of meetings. This was deemed to be more efficient since there was a tight time-frame which all parties concerned should observe to enable the complaints to be disposed of expeditiously.
8.8	Towards the latter half of the election period, the vetting procedure was slightly modified in that each VG would alone make decision on the cases submitted to him/her for vetting and cases were to be forwarded to the CC for consideration only if the VG decided that the CC should be consulted. Every complaint submitted to a VG, however, would also be copied to the EAC Chairman who would ensure that a consistent standard was maintained among the VGs. The new arrangement, which aimed to speed up the vetting process, was considered necessary in view of the large number of complaints received. As a matter of fact, the new arrangement proved to be a success and consideration would be given to adopting it in future elections.

8.9	As at 12 January 2000, the closing date for complaints to be entertained regarding the 1999 DC election, altogether 975 election-related complaints were received by the CC. In addition, 1,561 complaints were received by the ROs, 820 by the Police and 536 by the ICAC.
8.10	These complaints could be generally categorised by their nature as follows: Category I Complaints within the exclusive jurisdiction of the EAC not covered by any statutory provisions imposing criminal penalty : such complaints were dealt with by the CC and ROs under EAC's delegated authority. Category II Complaints that might involve criminal liability including breaches of the EAC (EP) (DC) Reg but not breaches of the provisions of the CIPO, the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap 201 ("POBO") and the Independent Commission Against Corruption Ordinance, Cap 204 ("ICACO") : such complainants were dealt with by the Police. Category III Complaints that related to breaches of various provisions of CIPO, POBO and ICACO : such complaints were dealt with exclusively by the ICAC.
8.11	Some of the complaints raised matters within all the three categories. Although matters involving the CIPO, POBO and ICACO would be investigated by the ICAC, complaints relating to other matters outside the three ordinances were referred by the ICAC to the CC. There was also an overlap of categories I and II cases handled by the ROs, the CC and the Police.
8.12	The general classification and number of complaints handled by the ROs (1,561 complaints), the CC (975), the ICAC (536) and the Police (820) are shown in the tables at Appendices V , VI , VII & VIII. A single complaint might appear in more than one of these appendices as it might have been handled by more than one party. To give a clear picture of the actual magnitude of the complaints received in respect of the 1999 DC election, a table showing the net number of complaints (3,243) is prepared, at Appendix IX.
8.13	Amongst the 3,243 complaints, a great number involved the following allegations relating to: (a) display of election advertisements: 1,056; (b) noise nuisance arising the use of loudspeakers and telephone canvassing: 643; (c) false statement against candidates: 275; (d) electioneering activities on private premises: 191; and (e) canvassing activities in NCZs/NSZs: 190.

8.14	To deal with complaints lodged by the public on the polling day, a complaints centre was set up in the REO. It operated from 7:30 am till 10:30 pm. Complaints, apart from coming in direct from the public, were also referred from the ROs and the PROs.
8.15	The number of complaint cases received on the polling day amounted to 1,415, of which 566 were received by the polling station staff, 542 by the ROs and 307 by the REO. The majority of the complaints were related to on-the-spot incidents. Hence, they should be and were in fact dealt with expeditiously with the aim of resolving them at the earliest opportunity, for there would be no point in taking follow-up action on these complaints on the following day when the issue in question might have long been overtaken by events, e.g. electioneering activities conducted in NCZs, and noise nuisances caused by the use of the loudspeaker, etc.
8.16	Complaints on the polling day were dealt with without a pause. Those received by the REO's complaints centre were promptly recorded and passed to the action officers who, after having studied the cases speedily and thoroughly, would refer them to the appropriate authorities for follow-up action. Complaints received by the ROs and PROs were equally handled expeditiously.
8.17	There were however cases which could not be disposed of on the spot. Follow-up action on these cases had to take a longer time, e.g. investigation conducted by ICAC into allegations which might involve breaches of the CIPO and investigation into complaints against polling station staff etc.
8.18	Of the 1,415 complaint cases handled on the polling day, 1,221 were resolved within the polling hours, which represents about 86.29% of the total. These were later submitted to the CC in one batch for information and/or comments, if any. The remaining 194 complaints, which were not straightforward cases, were later submitted to the VGs for consideration after the polling day.

8.19	Of the 975 cases received by the CC, 87 were found to be substantiated or partially substantiated. For those who had committed offences which were found substantiated, the EAC ruled that penalties be imposed on them. This was to uphold the principle that the election should be held in a fair, open and honest manner.
8.20	Available penalties included warnings, reprimands and censures. The CC ruled that the type of penalty imposed on the offender did not necessarily have to hinge on the number of times which he or she had breached the rules. It all depended on the seriousness of the offence. Even though the candidate might have committed the offence for the first time, he could have been issued a reprimand or a censure if the nature of the offence was considered serious enough to warrant one.
8.21	During the period in which complaints were processed, the CC and the EAC issued a total of 67 warnings and two reprimands. A breakdown of the number of these warnings and reprimands by the nature of the offences committed is shown at Appendix X. It should be noted that there were offenders who had been warned more than once. These offenders might have committed the same offence more than once or have committed different offences at different times. In any case, the EAC is of the view that the situation should not be tolerated.
8.22	The Police has so far found 149 cases substantiated of which 140 were followed by a warning at scene and nine were prosecuted. The ICAC has found six cases substantiated including one bribery, one false statement concerning a candidate, three omission of printing details and one failing to deposit copies of election campaign materials with the RO, all of which were dealt with by warning. The two law enforcement agencies are still investigating a total of 536 election-related cases.
8.23	The breakdown of the outcome of cases investigated by the CC, the ICAC and the Police can be found in Appendices XI , XII & XIII respectively.

8.24	The complaints channel and procedures have been used for a number of years. The EAC considers that this is the right time to record a reminder regarding the purposes of and benefits from entertaining complaints.
8.25	Complaints are an indispensable means whereby grievances about what is seen to be non-observance of electoral law, regulations and guidelines can be aired. Complaints also provide a necessary facility for curbing or controlling abuses; thus mutual supervision amongst candidates is fortified.
8.26	Moreover, it cannot be over-emphasised that complaints are an important source of information, letting the EAC know what are, or are perceived to be, wrong or deficient with particular areas of the existing electoral arrangements. They also foreshadow the candidate's or the elector's expectations, widening the EAC's horizons as to what improvements should be introduced to meet such expectations.
8.27	Efficient and fair handling of complaints and an effective recovery strategy stemmed from them are conducive to generating positive feelings about elections in complainants and complainees alike. Complaints also reveal that some of the persons involved do not fully understand the electoral process. They give an opportunity to the EAC to explain to these persons how the law, regulations, guidelines and appropriate procedure should be properly viewed and the spirit or policy behind these rules. The public image of and the confidence in the electoral process are enhanced as a result of their better understanding of this process.