TNAG-0409-FCO40-455-Allegations-of-bribery-and-corruption-in-the-Hong-Kong-polic-1973 — Page 152

against corrupt persons will ensure

+

My view is that A. C. Branch should be given the opportunity of proving itself under the proposed new procedures. If success cannot be achieved and confidence inspired in say 3 years, then there may well be a case for trying something else. . . .".

223. Arguments against separation of the Anti-Corruption Office from the police were contained in a further memorandum by the then Commissioner dated 12th February 1969. In it, the Commissioner said:—

"Armed with the new proposed Prevention of Corruption Ordinance, any Anti-Corruption Bureau, Police or otherwise, almost certainly must produce far better results before the public than has the case in the past . . . I believe. . . that the right course is to allow the A.C. Bureau to remain as a unit of the Police Force, anyway for the next 3 or 4 years, . . . a period of 3 or 4 years will provide a sufficient passage of time to enable an enlarged and reorganized A.C. Bureau to show its mettle armed with the law needed to do the job, provided we get it. If after that time it is demonstrated that the police A.C. Bureau has failed to curb corruption, then will be the time to consider turning to an independent Bureau provided the causes of failure prove to be police corruption or inefficiency."

224. In tendering their advice on the Prevention of Bribery Bill on 3rd June 1969, the Advisory Com- mittee said:

"The Committee has given considerable thought to the advisability of setting up an independent Anti- Corruption Bureau separate from the Police Force and has felt unable to make recommendations on the Bill without considering this aspect... Whilst we feel that there is much to be said in favour of such a Bureau, our present recommendation is that in the prevailing circumstances the Anti-Corrup- tion Bureau should remain with the Police Force."

However, as I have said, they went on to recommend that the Target Committee should be enlarged so as to include non-police and non-official members; and this recommendation was accepted.

225. In 1970, the Unofficial Members of Legislative Council were strongly in favour of separation; and it was agreed that a review of the role of the Anti-Corruption Office would definitely take place after the Ordinance had been in operation for 3 years. The Ordinance came into force on 14th May 1971; and I apprehend that, but for the departure of Mr. GODBER, the anticipated review would not have taken place till after May 1974. It would appear that the Commissioner of Police would have preferred the review to take place after May 1975. After all, the Ordinance has only been in operation for a little over 2 years.

226. The Colonial Secretary designate (The Hon. D. T. E. ROBERTS) recently visited three agencies established to deal with corruption in New York, Malaysia and Singapore. He has kindly supplied me with a transcript of notes taken by him during those visits.

Comparison with Singapore

227. It is said that the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau in Singapore is far more successful in the battle against corruption there than the A.C. Office is in Hong Kong. In deciding how much truth there is in this assertion, again it is no good closing our eyes to the obvious differences between the two territories. In this regard, I cannot do better than quote a few passages from Mr. Law's report on his visit to Singapore. Referring to the tremendous influence exercised by the Prime Minister, Mr. Law says:-

"... his dominant personality is felt throughout all strata of Singapore society from cabinet ministers to hawkers in the street. As the firmly entrenched leader of a newly emergent nation, he sets a blister- ing pace for all in his administration to follow... One of his pet hatreds is corruption, an evil which he is determined to stamp out and control with all the forces at his disposal. His lead dictates the atmosphere in which his Anti-Corruption Bureau (... C.P.I.B.) operates. His influence is most marked and woe betide any Government officer of any rank who disregards his lead. Not only may his chances of promotion dwindle to nothing but that officer's career is liable to be terminated by the stroke of the pen."

Mr. LAW continues thus:-

"The great majority of the people who live and work there want to and feel that they must go it alone. They have a very definite stake in the future . . . and this factor engenders an enthusiasm, a sense of responsibility and indeed loyalty which is . . . in marked contrast to the attitude extant before Singapore became a Republic . . . in Hong Kong... the bulk of the population is here for one reason and one reason only, to make money. This is not to say that Singapore is not a commercial society, it is of course and is flourishing but it is not the only reason for the population being there."

44