TNAG-0198-FCO40-234-Prevention-of-bribery-bill-1969 — Page 25

0003230

G.F. 323

CONFIDENTIAL

10.

11.

2.

With the introduction of the new Bill, it is advisable that the Attorney General should be in charge of the work and not the Police, and this is based on the following:

(a) The primary function of the Police was to maintain Law and

order, and there was evidence that the Police were understaffed in exercising its normal duty. If these men were given an additional duty, they would not probably be able to perform it satisfactorily.

(b) As the final decision still rested in the hands of the Attorney

General it would be more convenient and effective if the Attorney General were put in charge of the case completely.

(c) Most of the public were unwilling to confide in the Police

concerning corruption cases as they were afraid that the Police might leak out their secrets, furthermore, they had the impression that the Police were much more corrupt than other government departments. On the other hand, the public would trust the Attorney General because of his reputable status.

(d) It would be quite inconvenient for the staff of the Anti-

Corruption Branch to investigate their colleagues on suspicion of corruption and that might also not win the trust of the public.

(e) Civil servants might restrain themselves from receiving bribes

because the Attorney General's prestige would inspire awe in them.

The Communist papers were of the opinion that the 'tough' Bill was only a trick used by the Hong Kong British authorities to deceive residents, and the Bill would only kill a few small flies by prosecuting some 'public servants', leaving the major offences committed by the Hong Kong British itself being covered up and unde tec ted. The existing legal powers were in fact not sufficient to stamp out corruption, as corruption was an inherent and unsolvable problem inside the Hong Kong British and it would still remain unsolved even if the new Bill were introduced. They criticised the Hong Kong British authorities for going about things in the wrong way, because the Bill should be intended to 'curb corruption' and not 'prevent bribery'. They pointed out that although the Bill was designed to combat the corruption of public servants, in fact the authorities concerned might use the powers to investigate the accounts. of the public. They further inquired whether it would be necessary to set up another branch to detect corruption if there was corruption in the Anti-Corruption Branch.

CONFIDENTIAL