Carrie Lam needs Pacific Place office ‘to match status’

Lawmakers question HK$9 million annual cost of rent and expenses for former chief executive

Former chief executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor needs an office to match her status and no suitable government premises were available when her term ended, the government said, justifying the HK$5.67 million annual rent for her workplace.

Director of Administration Millie Ng Kiang Mei-nei was responding to lawmakers’ concerns over a large expenditure of public money – HK$9.17 million – having been estimated for an office for a former chief executive in the 2023-24 financial year.

“My understanding was when there was the fourth former chief executive, the government had looked for different places to set up her office, but there were no suitable government premises,” Ng told a Legislative Council Finance Committee meeting yesterday.

“We also had to consider that the office had to match her status and operational needs. For example, among her work on promoting Hong Kong is to meet many political figures and delegations from the mainland and overseas, as well as taking interviews.”

Ng also said the office had to be in the city centre, while overall security measures of the commercial property it was situated in had to be taken into account.

In a written reply to lawmakers on Monday, Ng revealed that for the 2023-24 year, an estimated expenditure of about HK$9.17 million was allocated for Lam’s office at Pacific Place in Admiralty, including HK$5.67 million for rent and HK$2.86 million in staff expenses.

The sum accounted for about 44 per cent of the total expenditure for running all four former leaders’ offices, which stood at HK$20.99 million in the 2023-24 financial year.

Following the end of Lam’s five-year term in 2022, the government rented a 2,874 sq ft office for her in the Admiralty shopping centre and office complex.

Ng explained that it was because the Office of Former Chief Executives on Kennedy Road in Mid-Levels was only big enough to accommodate the three other ex-leaders.

In the 2022-23 financial year, Lam’s office spent HK$6.95 million, including HK$4.43 million for rent and HK$2.04 million on staff expenses. Another HK$6.55 million was used on non-recurrent expenditure that year.

The Post in 2022 reported that HK$8.7 million was spent on renovating the office.

Ng said there was a 31 per cent year-on-year increase because the office was rented in the middle of 2022, so the amount only covered nine months, stressing that the rent had not changed.

She said staffing expenses for Lam’s office were also higher than for other ex-leaders as an additional receptionist had been hired on top of the usual senior personal assistant, assistant clerical officer and personal chauffeur.

Staff salaries were adjusted according to the wage increase applied to civil servants, she added.

Lawmaker Michael Tien Puksun asked whether the government would consider moving Lam’s office to a location with cheaper rent after the lease expired next October.

“Do you have any plans? Extending the lease will continue to allow the landlord to set a price as high as they like,” he said.

“If we move to another office, the renovation fee of HK$8.7 million will be wasted. Both options are difficult to accept.”

Ng responded that the government would consider the actual situation and operational needs, adding it was crucial the office could support Lam’s work in promoting Hong Kong.

Lawmaker Dominic Lee Tszking of the New People’s Party also suggested the government move the office to a cheaper site or to government premises.

“The government is currently under fiscal constraints and the economy is poor,” he said.

“Why are we still allowing a former chief executive’s office to rent a grade A space? Is there really such a need?”

He also questioned why Lam’s office usage rate was not recorded while district councillors had to submit reports regularly on meetings with residents and their work.

But Ng replied that setting key performance indicators for the office was not applicable because of its “unique” nature.