4.
6.
7.
8.
been highly improper for me to address the Royal Hong Kong Police Force, over the head of the Commissioner, in order to ascertain whether officers of ability would be willing to serve in an independent bureau.
Apart from impairing their career prospects, officers of ability would find it distasteful to spend their working lives in an Anti-Corruption Bureau, independent or otherwise.
Again, I am not in a position to comment either way except to draw attention to para. 2 of the extract from Mr. JONES' report quoted at paragraph 220 above. The views of the Singapore Commissioner of Police appear to differ from those of the Commissioner of Police, Hong Kong.
The recruitment of police officers from overseas would prove difficult and, in any case, would take time.
Again, I am not in a position to comment either way.
An independent Anti-Corruption Bureau would lose the vast knowledge and resources which the Hong Kong Police can bring to bear against crime, including corruption, and the advice and counsel of the Commissioner, his Deputies, and the Director of Criminal Investigation.
It is perfectly true that the A.C. Office works hand-in-hand with other specialist sections [Narcotics Bureau, Special Branch, etc.]. The Office also has access to criminal and intelligence Records. It has behind it the full resources of the Police Force and that includes means of com- munication with other Police Forces and security agencies. It would be virtually impossible to duplicate all this. Whether an independent bureau would "lose" (i.e. fail to get access to and have the benefit of) the vast knowledge and resources of the Royal Hong Kong Police Force would depend largely on the attitude of the Commissioner. Argument no. 6 was put forward by the then Commissioner in 1969 and again by the present Commissioner. I do not see how any independent bureau could function satisfactorily without the full co-operation of the Royal Hong Kong Police Force. I suppose the Commissioner could be ordered to co-operate. But, half- hearted co-operation would mean that an independent bureau would be seriously handicapped.
There is no guarantee that corrupt elements would not soon infiltrate into an independent bureau. If that were to happen, it would be impossible for a small bureau to turn inwards upon itself in order to investigate itself, whereas it is a relatively simple matter for a vast organization like the Royal Hong Kong Police Force to investigate any part of itself. Corruption in an independent bureau would have to be investigated by the Royal Hong Kong Police Force.
I have nothing to add to that argument.
A bureau staffed by police investigators but responsible to persons other than the Commissioner of Police and his officers would be nothing more than an emphatic vote of no confidence in the senior officers of the Police Force and would be strongly resented by the officers of the Police Force. The morale of the Force is at stake. The result of any lowering of the morale of the Royal Hong Kong Police Force would be putting in jeopardy the peace order and security of Hong Kong.
This is the substance of another argument put forward by the Commissioner. I have no reason to believe that the separation of the Immigration and Transport Departments from the Police several years ago adversely affected the morale of the Force; and in Singapore, Malaysia and Ceylon, it does not appear that separation had any adverse effect on the morale of the Police in these countries. But that is all I can say. I do not think that it would assist in the slightest if I said I agreed or disagreed with the Commissioner. It is his Police Force. He knows, or should know, his men. On the other hand, forecasting the effect of something-or-other on morale is always a matter of opinion-not a matter of law or a matter on which a Commission like this can make a finding.
233. These are the main arguments which have been put forward to the Commission for and against separa- tion. The present Commissioner of Police is emphatically against separation; and he says:-
66
...
no counter proposals for a practical alternative to the present arrangements have yet been made and the question of setting up an independent organization has not been examined in detail. No plans exist for recruiting, training and managing staff; the powers and responsibilities of an independent organization vis-a-vis those of the R.H.K. Police Force have not been defined; its prospects of success have not been studied."
UMELCO, City District Officers, and nearly all heads of Departments (including the District Commissioner, New Territories) say that the public is overwhelmingly in favour of separation, and they recommend separation. As regards the non-police members of the Target Committee, opinions vary. Mr. WARR (until recently Director of Audit) is in favour of separation. Professor Mackey is against separation. Mr. STRATTON takes an inter-
50