0003230
G.F. 323
CONFIDENTIAL
From: City District Commissioner
(Kowloon)
Ref: (3) in CDCK 01/6/69c
Tel. No. : K-884111 Ext. 342
Date: 18th September 1969
MEMO
To: Establishment Officer
(Attn: Mr. C.W.B. Oxley)
Your Ref. (44) in CR 9/3231/68 II
Dated: 5th September 1969
Prevention of Bribery Bill, 1969
I am replying to your memo under reference on behalf of all C.D.0.s in Kowloon. The comments in this memo are largely based on what has been picked up so far by the staff of the City District Offices in Kowloon in their daily contacts with the public; some of these comments have previously been included in our weekly "Town Talk".
2.
The draft bill has stimulated considerable interest amongst the general public. The consensus of opinion seems to be in favour of the proposed new legislation, which is considered to be more effective than the existing laws. However, these comments do not appear to have been subjected to an objective and critical examination of the implications of each provision in the bill; they tend to carry an emotional undertone and generalisations. The reason for this reaction is, I suppose, that the public simply feel that since corruption is bad, any supposedly effective legislation aiming at containing it must be good, and therefore the proposed bill is good. Very few people are sophisticated enough to realise the subtle implications of the fact that by placing the onus of proof on the accused we are violating the basic spirit of the British law of justice. The question of who should take action against alleged offenders is widely talked about, but the "technicalities" of processes of investigations and prosecutions (such as inspection of bank accounts) have generated only limited discussion. Some civil servants have grave misgivings about the bill, but their objections are made less vociferous by the popular but dubious argument that if you are not corrupt, you should not be afraid of investigations.
3.
The following is a summary of the points commonly raised by the public in commenting on the draft bill:-
(a) The Police Anti-Corruption Branch should not continue to be responsible for taking action against alleged offenders. People just do not believe that the Anti-Corruption Branch can give the legislation the full effect that Government and the public desire. The usual points have been made i.e. that the Anti-Corruption Branch is a unit of the Police Force and that some personnel of the Force are known to be corrupt; that Police officers serving in the Anti-Corruption Branch would have to serve in other formations after their tour of duty in the Branch and that this would make them reluctant to take action against other Police officers; and that because officers of the Branch are serving policemen with previous experience in the Force, they have probably met corruption in the past, accepted it as a fact of life and failed to rocognise it as a serious crime. There should be an independent body (having a status similar to that of the Audit Department) specifically charged with the responsibility. of enforcing the law.
CONFIDENTIAL
/(b)