HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL · 21st October 1970. 133
and those Civil Service Staff Associations represented on the Senior Civil Service Council. Comments from these bodies, opinions expressed in the press, the views of heads of departments and the reactions of the public, as these became available particularly through the City District Offices, were all carefully studied and a number of changes have been made in consequence of them, mainly to provide safeguards against the possible abuse of some of the provisions of the bill, though the bill before Council today does not differ greatly in matters of substance from the 1969 bill.
After a number of amendments had been made to the 1969 bill it was, as honourable Members may be aware, submitted to the Secretary of State for his comments late last year, in view of its importance and of the nature of some of its clauses. The Secretary of State put forward a number of suggestions, which have been embodied in the present bill, and gave his approval to it in its present form.
Among the definitions in clause 2 of the bill are those of "public servant" and of the "Director". The term "public servant" is in wide terms, and includes not only Government servants, but also Members of the Executive Council, the Legislative Council and the Urban Council and employees of any of the semi-public bodies which are listed in the Schedule to the bill. Anyone, therefore, who offers an advantage to any of those persons is offering an advantage to a public servant and, in consequence, commits the offence of bribery which is described in clause 4 of the bill. I would like particularly to direct the attention of honourable Members to the definition of "Director" because it reflects the Government's decision that the responsibility for tackling corruption should remain with the Anti-Corruption Branch of the Royal Hong Kong Police Force and not be given, as has been suggested in some quarters, to a new organization, independent of the police.
After carefully considering the arguments for the creation of a separate body, the Government is satisfied that the task should remain in the hands of the Anti-Corruption Branch which, even with its present powers, has attained a steadily increasing measure of success during the past two years. The setting up of a new organization would show a very serious lack of confidence, both in that Branch and in the Police Force as a whole, a lack of confidence which is in no sense justified by past experience. Furthermore, a separate body would have to be staffed by experienced police officers and it is doubtful if we could hope to obtain the high calibre of officer required for this difficult task with the relatively poor promotion prospects and the narrow degree of specialization which would be inseparable from the creation of a small independent organization of this kind.
However, it is recognized that the powers of investigation which are conferred by this bill are such that the greatest restraint must be