TNAG-0405-FCO40-451-Allegations-of-bribery-and-corruption-in-the-Hong-Kong-polic-1973 — Page 124

Telephone: 01-940 9214

Rec, and/Ack.23/5/73. H.K.I.Q.... Department

Mr Anthony Royle MP

for draft reply please

from Mr. Royle.

Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Foreign and Commonwealth Office

London S.W.1.

20 Bishops Close Ham Common

Richmond

Surrey.

22 May 1973

24

NICK 14/19

Dear Mr Royle

27

21

Thank you for your letter of 15 May and for asking Inspector-General of Colonial Police Mr Michael J. Macoun to examine my complaints and allegations. As the son of a former Commander of the Chinese Maritime Customs I feel he will have had some insight into the problems of corruption in the East which would have assisted him in his deliberations on this matter.

I note that Mr Macoun has made a "thorough examination" of my case. I am not surprised that he has not found, as he says, "any foundation" for my allegations of corruption and maladministration (although it is not my position, as you suggest, that corruption is reserved to senior officers of the Force), because as I wrote in my letter to you of 6 April I would supply further information, detail or explanation where the documents do not contain the evidence they ought to. I am therefore slightly amazed that Mr Macoun did not invite me for a personal talk during the course of his examination and prior to his reaching his conclusions. Nevertheless I am pleased that Mr Macoun has expressed a willingness to see me even at this late date. Surely I will contact him shortly, although before our meeting I would be

like grateful if you would answer the question as to how Mr Macoun, predecessor examiners, is able to consider that the inquiries SO- called, of 1963 and 1965 were "adequate", having in mind the defects of these 'inquiries' which I mention in my letters to you of 1 April, 6 April and in much correspondence with your Office during the past decade. If you would let me have this answer as soon as possible I would be most grateful; I have been waiting for your Office to supply it since 1965. The essence of the question is contained in paragraph 5 of my letter of 6 April and in my letter to former Under Secretary Mrs Eirene White dated 1 December 1965, still unanswered and un- acknowledged.

•

The 'inquiries' of 1963 and 1965 were, of course, totally inadequate, for the reasons mentioned in my letters to you. It is because they were inadequate, of course, that I maintain that they should be properly conducted, and had they been adequate then I would not now be apportioning some time and effort to this matter. If we are to introduce the word "adequate" to describe these travesties, which your Office has hitherto described as "correct" and "proper" if my memory serves me correctly, then one must ask 'Adequate for what purposes and whose purposes?' - certainly not the gathering and recording of truth. A juvenile writing a history essay could exhibit better standards of investigation and thinking than have been exhibited by the gallant gentlemen who have 'investigated' my reports.

Mr Macoun as a policeman and police authority will doubtless be aware of the police principles set down by C.C.H.Moriarty: that generally speaking the evidence of one witness is enough; that credibility depends on a witness's knowledge of the facts, his

OVER/