Tony Chan lost, finally - The High Court has ruled that feng shui master Tony Chan has lost in the estate trial against the Chinachem Charitable Foundation, ending (for now) his attempt to gain ownership of late tycoon Nina Wang’s $100 billion fortune. High Court judge Johnson Lam says in his judgment that he believes the will Chan claims that Wang signed in 2006, which grants him her entire fortune upon her death, is fake. The judge believes Wang’s signature on the 2006 will is also fake. Because the 2006 will is fake, the court has ruled in favor of the charitable foundation, which was supposed to take over Wang’s fortune according to her 2002 will. The judge also says despite his belief that Wang and Chan were lovers, he does not think the relationship was so strong that Wang would leave Chan her entire fortune, especially since most of that fortune came from her business with her late husband, Teddy Wang. The judge also believes the two witnesses for Chan’s 2006 will were not signing the same document that Chan presented as the 2006 will—the two witnesses signed one piece of paper, while the 2006 will consists of two pages. There is speculation that the High Court judgment will lead to criminal charges for Chan, who might be charged for forging the will.

Access to public information denied
The Ombudsman has recently criticized several government departments for not implementing the “Code on Access to Information,” in which the government is required to provide government information to the public should the latter make a request. Ever since the code was implemented in 1995, government departments have found excuses to deny public requests for public information. In October 2008, a person requested the test results on melamine levels in food conducted by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) but the latter denied the request, stating that releasing the information would confuse the public. Only after being rapped for this inadequate rejection did the FEHD finally release the information in July 2009. In a separate case, a person requested the Chief Executive Office (CEO) reveal the pay levels of its undersecretaries and political assistants. The CEO denied the request, saying the salary levels are the private matters of each individual.