0003200
323
CONFIDENTIAL
General Views and Comments of the European Press
on the Prevention of Bribery Bill
1. The Community generally welcomed the Prevention of Bribery Bill as a means
to stamp out corruption.
2. Most of the public and some Urban Councillors and Kaifong leaders wished
to separate the Anti-Corruption Branch from the Police Force on the grounds that:
(a) the Police Force has already been criticised by certain quarters
for having too great powers;
(b) the success of the ordinance would depend on its strict enforcement and Government should follow Singapore in setting up an independent Anti-Corruption Department answerable to the Attorney General or the Governor;
(c) Corruption would be better dealt with by the Judiciary than by the
Police, as the latter has to maintain public order among the community and enforce the law;
(a) there were not enough policemen to maintain law and order, and
there would not be any satisfactory result in sweeping away corruption if additional duties were given to them;
(e) the final decision would still be in the hands of the Attorney
General, but it would be much better for the Attorney General to handle cases solely rather than by operating through the Police Force;
(f) members of the public would be more likely to give information to
the Attorney General than to the Police as they were afraid that the Police would leak out their secrets;
(g) it had already been admitted that there was corruption in the Police
Force and such a view was shared by a large proportion of the community;
(h) the detectives in the Anti-Corruption Branch are transferred from
time to time to other divisions within the Force, and they could not possibly risk 'spying' on a man who perhaps a few months later would be their superior officer.
3. As the Bill would give wider powers of investigation, Government should
give an assurance to the public that the people chosen were not themselves corrupt.
4. The draft Bill has not been sufficiently widely circularised among the
public in order to obtain their views and comments, and it is a pity that some associations were given only one copy of the Bill for their perusal.
5. When a public servant is suspected of living above his means, then to
which authority should he give his explanation.
6. It is suggested that Government should confiscate the property of the
accused when it has been obtained by corrupt means.
7. As the Bill is concerned with Civil Servants, it is unfortunate that
they are not allowed by Government Regulations to voice their opinions openly.
/7.
CONFIDENTIAL