CONFIDENTIAL
2
3. I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE THAT :-
(A) CLAUSE 10 IN SUBSTANCE WAS BASED ON THE CONSIDERED ADVICE OF THE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CORRUPTION, WHO HAVE REPEATEDLY EXPRESSED
DISATISFACTION AT THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEIR ADVICE HAS BEEN
OPPOSED AND THESE MATTERS DELAYED.
(B) IT IS THE OPINION OF SUCCESSIVE COMMISSIONERS OF POLICE THAT
LITTLE PROGRESS AGAINST CORRUPTION CAN BE MADE WITHOUT CLAUSE 10,
WHICH THEY CONSIDERED TO BE THE HEART OF THE BILL.
(C) THIS ADVICE TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE POSSIBILITY OF PROCEEDING
AGAINST PUBLIC SERVANTS UNDER SOMEWHAT SIMILAR PROVISIONS IN
DISCIPLINARY REGULATIONS SEMICOLON BUT THESE PROVISIONS ALONE ARE
AN INADEQUATE SANCTION SINCE IT IS NO GREAT HARDSHIP IN THE LOCAL
CONTEXT TO BE DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE WHEN IN POSSESSION OF A
CONSIDERABLE ILLEGALLY ACQUIRED FORTUNE.
(D) CASES EXIST NOW WHICH COULD BE PROCEEDED WITH IF THESE
PROVISIONS WERE IN FORCE, BUT ON WHICH NO PROGRESS IS POSSIBLE
WITHOUT THEM.
(E) MERE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROPOSAL TO INTRODUCE CLAUSE 10 IS
CREDIBLY THOUGHT TO HAVE INDUCED A NUMBER OF DESIRABLE RESIGNATIONS.
(F) WHEN THE BILL WAS FIRST PUBLISHED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, NO
OBJECTIONS TO THE PRINCIPLE OF CLAUSE 10 WERE RAISED, AND THE
CLAUSE HAS BEEN FURTHER MODIFIED SINCE THEN.
(G) THE CLAUSE HAS NOT BEEN OPPOSED BY THE HONG KONG CHINESE CIVIL
SERVANTS ASSOCIATION AND THE SENIOR NON-EXPATRIATE OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION SEMICOLON BUT OBJECTION WAS RAISED TO THE CLAUSE
IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM) ONLY BY THE ASSOCIATION OF EUROPEAN
CIVIL SERVANTS.
(H) EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, WHEN ENDORSING THE BILL GENERALLY, ADVISED
THAT THESE PARTICULAR PROVISIONS WERE NECESSARY AND SHOULD NOT
BE FURTHER ERODED.
/4. MY
CONFIDENTIAL VTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.