E
!
(2)
(3)
2/
Since the Hongkong Government places so much faith in its records, then it would seem appropriate that it should examine those records to establish positively who was the servant of myself and Mr Hurst in October 1962. This has not been done.
19
former
However,
The Commission states that Divisional Superintendent of Hunghom, and in whose name
offered money to me, has been interviewed and 'made a complete denial of the allegations." there is no explanation as to which specific allegations are being denied and nor is there any explanation from the Commission as to why accepted without question. nothing and is unsatisfactory.
denials should be Such a blanket denial proves
I find it surprising that the Commission should claim that no further details were made available regarding my allegations, between January 24, 1965 and December 4, 1974, having in mind that there has been a continual exchange of correspondence about this matter in the intervening period; that the Hongkong Government itself neglected to seek from me the further specific detail it would have required to conduct a proper inquiry in 1965, when that assistance was offered by me to the authorities; that knowing this, the then Governor of Hongkong told the Colonial Office that a "full inquiry" had been held; and that, as I understand it, all papers held by the authorities should have been before the Commission at the time of its alleged investigation.
(4) The Commission comments that I acknowledge that I took no immediate action in respect of the alleged offerings because I considered
was in a protected position whilst I was in a weak position.
This appears a very biased comment. The fact is that the widespread corruption alleged by me to have existed at the relevant time has now been exposed, is public knowledge and has been officially recognised. But that was not the case at the material time, when its substantial nature and extent was denied by the authorities, and there is nothing extraordinary in a junior employee on probation being cautious when confronted by such a situation as then existed.
The Commission should note that in my submission, at paragraph 17, I stated that I had asked the then Commissioner of Police, Mr Henry Heath, if he was aware that his junior officers were being subjected to pressures in their divisions. The caution expressed even in that allusion to the internal graft I had encountered should further support the reality of the situation at the time. Yet in this also it appears the Commission has taken no steps whatever to interview the person concerned nor to examine the airoumatanoes attending the offenennt
I allege
(5) I note the Commission's choosing to attempt to separate the facts of my specific corruption allegation from the fact of my wrongful dismissal. In fact the two matters are directly
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.