What Can Hong Kong Do To Strengthen Its Anti-Corruption Agency In These Changing Times?

Many Hong Kong people credit the British colonial government for establishing the ICAC and making Hong Kong a renowned corruption-free society. But this statement is only half true. One should also ask why Hong Kong was so corrupt in the first place. Pre-1974, corruption in colonial Hong Kong had gone from bad to worse. By the 1970s, the problem was probably the worst in the world. Corruption was described as affecting Hongkongers “from womb to tomb”.

Almost every Hongkonger experienced it at some point in their life. It was amazing to observe at the time that whenever Hong Kong had a new governor or new police commissioner coming from Britain to take office, they would vow to eradicate corruption, only for the problem to be worse once they had completed their term.

When Murray MacLehose arrived on November 19, 1971 to be the 25th governor, he was said to have been briefed upon arrival on the seriousness of corruption and urged to take strong action. But, apparently, such advice was ignored. It was only two years later, in 1973, when chief superintendent Peter Godber escaped a police investigation into his unexplained wealth and absconded to Britain, sparking a huge public protest, that MacLehose was forced to address the problem. He set up the ICAC in 1974.

To be fair, some credit should go to him for appointing the right people to head the ICAC. Jack Cater was named the first commissioner and John Prendergast the first head of operations. Both men were instrumental in setting up an excellent system at the ICAC that has enabled its continued success to this day.

The biggest credit should go to the first generation of ICAC staff who worked tirelessly and without fear to combat the powerful corruption syndicates at the time.

The ICAC’s work was not all smooth sailing, especially in the beginning. In October 1977, hundreds of police officers and their families took part in a huge protest against the crackdown, with some storming the ICAC office. MacLehose quickly gave in to the police demand and declared a generous amnesty for all offences committed before January 1, 1977.

The amnesty was most unfair because it immediately aborted hundreds of ICAC investigations. As a result, the suspects in these investigations got off scot-free and even got to keep their ill-gotten gains. That dealt a huge blow to the morale of the ICAC.

Many people thought the ICAC’s contribution was restricted to combating corruption. But it has achieved a lot more for Hong Kong. It acted as a catalyst for change in many aspects of Hong Kong life. By investigating and prosecuting a number of bank fraud cases in the 1980s, including the Overseas Trust Bank, which was then the third-largest local bank in Hong Kong, it exposed the inadequacies of the Office of the Commissioner of Banking. This led to the establishment of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority.

Similarly, by prosecuting the then chairman of the Hong Kong stock exchange, Ronald Li Fook-shiu, it successfully enabled a reform of the exchange and the setting up of the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission, paving the way for Hong Kong to become one of the world’s top financial centres.

Hong Kong should also be grateful to Tung Chee-hwa, the special administrative region’s first chief executive. At the time of the city’s return to Chinese sovereignty in 1997, there were signs of a resurgence in corruption, as some people who were unsure of the future decided to make “a quick buck” before leaving Hong Kong. Thanks to Tung’s great personal support of the ICAC, Hong Kong succeeded in remaining clean after 1997, proving false the Western media prediction of “the death of Hong Kong”.

So, what’s next for the ICAC? To meet its present and future challenges, it should consider addressing three issues.

First, the ICAC has increasingly been used by the opposition parties as a political tool. Politicians and activists have often made frivolous and even malicious complaints to the commission to achieve their political objectives. On every occasion, they made a show of lodging a complaint, parading for the media in front of the ICAC headquarters.

This is clearly in breach of the spirit of Section 30 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, which seeks to ensure the confidentiality of all ICAC investigations as well as the reputation of the suspects, before there is evidence of their involvement which justifies arrest action. However, the law covers only those complaints that have been lodged, but not beforehand. The law should be amended to cover this grey area, so as to prohibit anyone giving undue publicity to a case before they lodge a complaint.

Second, the ICAC Operations Review Committee has proved a very effective check-and-balance mechanism to ensure all investigations are properly carried out. The recent UGL case, involving a payment to former chief executive Leung Chun-ying which critics claimed could be improper, demonstrated the committee’s important role as a watchdog, and gave comfort to the public that the investigation was thorough and the result was credible. However, the committee does not have any legal status. The government should consider making it a statutory body, similar to the Independent Police Complaints Council.

Finally, the ICAC should take a leading role in the development of the Greater Bay Area by assisting the anti-corruption branches in all regional cities to enhance their professional abilities. One way to do so would be to set up an ICAC Greater Bay Area academy, which would help the various local agencies work together to build up a corruption-free zone.

Related posts:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply