Government
XXXXXXXXX
CR 9/3231/68
13 January 1977
The Chinese lanufacturers' Association of liong Kong - CMA Building
64-65 Connaught Road Central
HONG KONG
لانا)
I am directed by the Governer to reply to your letter of Becomber, 1976, on the subject of
9 the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.
2.
The Government firmly believes that the
law as it now stands is both correct and just.
3
Sections 9(1) and 9(2) of the Ordinance are intended to prevent underhand dealings in private business. A payment knowingly made to an employer or agent against the wishes of his employer or principal is obviously dishonest and can only be intended to undermine the integrity of the employee or agent. The Government is confident that your Association and their co-signatories must agree with this.
4.
It is incorrect to suggest that third parties are not entitled to ask an employee or agent what his employer's attitude to the payment and receipt of commissions is. Custer cannot justify continued payment of commissions which are not acceptable to the employer or principal.
5.
Accepting that an employée or agent must be. trusted and recognised as being a fully authorised person, this cannot be considered to entitle him to retain secret cornissions and rebates. Surely employers and principals in Hong Kong (and elsewhere) would generally not approve of the payment of secret commissions?
6.
The Government cannot accept the suggestion that the payment of unauthorised commissions or rebates is a necessary part of llong Kong's trading processes. An adherence to proper standards must be to long Kong's advantage in the long run. Nor can the Government agree that it has been generally recognised in Hong Kong that unauthorised commissions are a legal means of promoting business. The law has long prohibited the payment of unauthorised commissions: Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance 1971 substantially repeats Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance 1943.
17.
-1-
Page 60Page 61