200027
C.S. 20A (Rev.)
From the Governor, Hong Kong
:he Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
SAVING DESPATCH IN
RARY No.51
20TCL 170
No.216
beated to:-
AKK 14/18
epeated to:-
No.
'No.
Jate.
February 1970.
My Reference......... CR 9/3231/68 III
Your Reference HKK 14/8 of 9.2.70.
10
Prevention of Bribery Bill 1970
This Bill was discussed by me during one of my visits to the FCO in November 1969 and has been the subject of correspondence between the Attorney General here and Carter.
2.
It has been indicated that if we wish to retain Clause 10 of the Bill, this will need to be referred to Ministers. I therefore ask that this should now be done as soon as possible, since public opinion in Hong Kong expects early action on this legislation.
3.
As you are aware, the Bill is based on the recommendations and views of a Committee composed of three Unofficial Members and the Establish- ment Officer. The Bill contains Clause 10 which has already been approved by the Executive Council and has been generally accepted by the public. response to press enquiries as to progress on the Bill, a Government spokesman has replied that it is being examined by you.
4.
If this Clause is to be excised therefore, we must expect that it will be generally known in Hong Kong that this has been done at your insistence and the comment will no doubt be made by the public that this is an unfortunate dictation of policy based on some abstract principle, which is little appreciated here, and not on Hong Kong's needs.
5.
I have no doubt therefore that a decision of Ministers that the clause must be removed from the Bill will attract strong criticism here from Unofficial Members of Councils and the general public as an un- reasonable refusal to allow Hong Kong to tackle corruption in a comprehensive way. I attach copies of speeches in the Legislative Council by two Unofficial Members which are examples of the reaction which can be expected. I should find myself in considerable difficulty in defending the removal of this clause,
6.
It might be argued that Ministers would experience difficulty in defending the clause, if this were challenged in Britain. Surely it can be answered that corruption is a far greater problem here than it is in Britain, and that tougher measures in Hong Kong are not only justifiable but unavoidable unless the continued existence of corruption is to be regarded as tolerable because beyond acceptable means of remedy. I would have thought this an even more difficult position to defend.
7.
While it may be that Clause 10 will not be used very frequently, I believe that it is an essential ingredient of the legislation not only because it is a valuable deterrent but also because its presence in the Bill is evidence of a determination to tackle corruption vigorously. If it is removed, it will not be easy to persuade the public that the problem is regarded by the Hong Kong Government as one of any great importance.
...
cont'd.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.