On 17th Oct. 1973 I had another appointment with two middle-aged plaincloth police inspectors attached to the Kowloon Anti-Corruption Office in Maxim Cafe, Prince Building, Hong Kong. One of the men was the same middle-aged police inspector who put to me silly qticns the last time while the other was a new face.
to
Both of them expressed dissatisfaction about my candid and detailed reports of corruption and protection racketeering in the police force; in particular, they looked very dismayed and uneasy over the accuracy and the substance of the information supplied; they were anxious find out who furnished me the same and if I knew any policemen personally. During conversation repeated attempts were made to find fault with me the victim and informant and to discredit I me but in vain.
Eventually, one of the police inspectors hinted that the criminals and protection racketeers were willing to seek compromise with me and suggested that I should contact them, directly or indirectly; they said that they consented to such arrangments.
In view of their suggestion, I have had serious doubt in the functions of the Police Anti- Corruption Branch and the integrity of its staff as graft busters and law-enforcement officers. I was worried that the so-called "investigations " had resulted in leakage to the suspects of the highly confidential information which I had supplied.
The hypocrisy of the Police Anti-Corruption Branch is self-evident in the fact that they, on the one hand, inserted advertisements/notices in local newspapers appealing to members of the public to report on graft and, on the other, they do not bother investigating informants' reports throughly and impartially.
The worst that could happen is that they pass on to the suspects details of informants' reports resulting in persecution of the latter under "mafia" type terrorism created by the agents for the suspects in a bid to prevent them from supplying information on graft and protection racketeering and from giving evidence as witnesses in courts of law.
During my two appointments with the anti-corruption officers abovementioned, I had not heard even one word from them signifying disapproval of crime, corruption, protection racketeering and other malpractices. In contrary to their roles, they used the same techniques as those often applied by corrupt Chinese police detectives in a bid to find fault with the victims to swindles and distort facts of criminal cases under investigation.
Likewise, it came upon my mind the idea that payments could have been made by the suspects to distort facts of my cases and to influence the "results" of the so-called"investigations". My unpleasant experience coincided with the viewpoints of one of my solicitors who told me that the Police Anti-Corruption Branch is equally corrupt and not reliable at all; its at aff do not usually probe cases of sericus collective corruption involving too many people; what they have been doing over the years is to catch occasionally a few 'tiny mosquitos" taking a few hundeds of dollars as bribes and bring them to court in discharge of their duties to the Crown; 'big tigers of corruption' are all at large. This observation was confirmed by the Sir Alastaire Blair-Kerr Graft Report as well. In breach of their duties, there has been a marked tendency on their part to cover up the scandals of their colleagues by arranging the "retirement", "resignation" and "departure" from the Colony of corrupt police officers and other suspects, as with the case of missing policeman Peter Godber. His advice for me was that I should report to the UMELCO or Mrs Elsie Eliott, the anti-graft crusader, as alter- natives.
It is reported that policemen desiring transfers to the Anti-Corruption Branch will have to pay for such postings which are regarded as "lucrative". My friends in the public service told me that some staff of the Anti-Corruption Branch demand as much as 50-80% of the graft money involvedxas remuneration for malpractives in their "investigations" and obstructing the course of justice.
from suspect:
Anyway, the suggestion on the part of the anti-corruption officers "investigating" my cases was given thought. Taking into consideration other circumstances of the cases, I am of the opinion that a compromise could be the idea of the authorities.
As they stand, my cases involved not only criminals, triadmen, but also quite a number of serving Chinese police detectives attached to several special duty units and police stations. If I were to give evidence in a court of law, whether as victim or witness, resultant
(3)