TNAG-0408-FCO40-454-Allegations-of-bribery-and-corruption-in-the-Hong-Kong-polic-1973 — Page 150

3/

The complaints I had ventured to make were made with the knowledge that there existed colleagues who were able and willing to support my allegations yet somehow (and I know how) their evidence was not recorded at all or not properly recorded. Had I complained about the $500 retainer offer what, I wonder, would have been my fate then?

As it was, on 17th July 1963 I personally informed the then Commissioner that his junior officers were being subjected to "pressures" in their divisions. This allusion was the strongest I felt able to put the $500 matter and the matters confided to me by colleagues. The Commissioner's reply (in the presence of his witness Superintendent Clough as I recall) was "It doesn't matter". This was in effect the last chance the Force had to keep this a 'family' matter and I do not think that I could have、 done more in attempting to be fair to all, including myself.

The

, myself, was not called to

detail from which any genuine

The $500 allegation was made to Hongkong Advisory Committee on Corruption in 1965 and no action was taken on it; no attempt was made to investigate the detail of the claim and, in fact, no detail was sought. Earlier that year the then Colonial Office had the then

missioner investigate my charges. Governor have another Assistant The complainant and principal wi support his allegations, to suppl. investigation would have to procee 31o to Whitehall that a "full inqu

50 in 1967, when she told the on to Parkitment by a Minister of Commons that "no truth" had, boon fod in my allegations although hor Department was woll aware as to why no truth had been found – it had not boon looked for.

t

nd the Governor was able to

had been hold a lie passed

It is of course astonishing that no officially recorded statement has ever been taken from me about the $500 retainer. The situation now is that although you have been seen to fight graft rather than run from it, bringing a degree of much confidence to the office of Commissioner, I could not accept that any investigation ordered by you would be properly conducted because not only areintegrity and impartiality liable to be dissipated by delegation but my own case has political implications in that were an inquiry to be genuinely conducted then a former Governor, a bevy of Ministers and some MPs would at least appear knaves when corroborative evidence supporting my charges of maladministartion is produced. I mention this not because you have suggested or I have solicited an investigation by you but because I want to indicate the problems involved and to emphasise that I have no doubts of your own integrity.

If we examine the $500 retainer and assume that it is not an invention of mine then we must ask other questions. Is Ellis the only officer to have been approached so boldly? Although Ellis made no formal report at the time, neither did the two other inspectors posted with him to Hunghom direct from PTS - did they not receive an approach, or if they did why did they not make a report? How many inspectors have kept quiet for how long? Have they joined the conspiracy actively by accepting retainers or passively by not obstructing corrupt colleagues securing their retainers?

In 1963 an inspector, who a few months ago was appointed to the rank of superintendent, confided to me that he had been offered $600 a month to turn a blind eye to illegal divisional gambling. He

...OVER/

Page 150Page 151