TNAG-0409-FCO40-455-Allegations-of-bribery-and-corruption-in-the-Hong-Kong-polic-1973 — Page 159

mediate stand. He says that separation is not feasible because of recruitment difficulties, job promotion prospects and other organizational factors; and he recommends that the present A.C. Office should be answerable to a:-

"form of non-police control comparable to that exercised by the Urban Council which by statute is a non-Government policy-making body which carries out its functions through the Urban Services Department, a department of Government. The Target Committee should be re-constituted. It should not contain any unofficial members... There should be only one police representative, preferably the Director of the A.C. Office. There should be a full-time Chairman of the Target Committee (perhaps a retired head of a department). His role would be akin to that of a managing director of a company (the Target Committee being the Board). The Director A.C. Branch would be akin to the General Manager of a company answerable to the Board and on a day-to-day level to the Managing Director."

It seems obvious from argument no. 8 against separation (paragraph 232 above) that such an arrangement would not be acceptable to the present Commissioner of Police.

234. Sir Ronald HOLMES says:-

". . . the arguments for retaining (the A.C. Office) in the Police Force are largely organizational and the

arguments for removing it are largely political and psychological.”

That states the problem very concisely. It is not one that is capable of being resolved judicially and I do not think that a firm recommendation by me either way would be of much assistance to the Governor. There are no issues of fact to be resolved. There are a number of "unknowns”, and several arguments for and against separation are pure speculation. Take, for example, argument no. 10 in paragraph 231 namely that the public will give a great deal more information to an agency which is independent of the police. Responsible opinion [UMELCO, etc.] firmly believe that this would happen. From the nature of the offence, as described in paragraphs 110-116 above, and from past experience, I feel bound to say that I have grave doubts as to whether the public will respond any better than they have done in the past. Indeed arguments 1-5 in paragraph 231 appear to cut clean across arument 10. It is simply “anyone's guess" as to whether there would be a better public response.

235. I do not question the factual basis of arguments 1 and 2 in paragraph 232. Any new agency would have to be staffed by trained investigators. We cannot entrust a job of this kind to amateurs. That means that if there is to be immediate separation, any new agency would have to be manned by officers seconded from the Royal Hong Kong Police Force; and I have no means of assessing what weight to give to arguments 3 and 4 in paragraph 232. If a policy decision to separate is made, presumably the intention is to strengthen the new agency by bringing in "new blood” from abroad. But I have no means of assessing the weight to be given to argument no. 5 in paragraph 232. As regards argument no. 6, even if the Commissioner of Police was per- suaded, or ordered, to co-operate, the degree to which co-operation would be practicable might depend on the composition of any new agency (police or civilian). Questions of security might be involved. As regards argument no. 8 in paragraph 232, UMELCO do not share the Commissioner's fears as regards the effect of separation on the morale of the Force. I have no reason to believe that separation of the Immigration and Transport Departments lowered the morale of the Force and there is nothing in the reports to indicate that the morale of the Police Forces in Singapore, Malaysia and Ceylon suffered in any way as a result of separation.

236. As regards the allegation of fact in argument no. 11 in paragraph 231 namely that the police are so corrupt that they are incapable of investigating allegations of corruption, this is not a matter which can be resolved judicially. The Royal Hong Kong Police Force are not on trial. All I can say is that many people have written to the Commission alleging that this is so.

237. On the other hand, what may well be a matter of great importance to the Governor in making a policy decision on the question of separation is the fact that there appears to be a widespread loss of confidence in the ability of the Police to investigate corruption cases with impartiality and zeal. UMELCO say that although this belief may not be justified-indeed may be very unfair to the police-no amount of assurance is likely to convince the public otherwise. Mr. Derek DAVIES, Editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review, writes:—

66

‘. . . so long as such a feeling exists, it is immaterial to argue whether it is justified or not.” Responsible bodies generally feel that the public will never be convinced that Government really intends to fight corruption unless the A.C. Office is separated from the Police. No doubt the GODBER case has caused a good deal of emotion and irrational thinking. But it is evident from the Advisory Committee's 6th report (paragraph 218 above) that the demand for separation is nothing new. It goes back over the last 12 years at least; and, it is difficult to see how this demand can be resisted any longer, provided the organisational problems involved can be solved. But, for the reasons I have given, I am not in a position to make a firm recommendation either way.

238. If it is decided to form a new agency for the investigation of bribery and corruption cases, I am in no doubt at all that it should be responsible to the Attorney General.

51