Example in Hong Kong’s anti-corruption drive

THE EDITOR: On August 15 you reported that “... Cabinet yesterday agreed to ‘beef up’ the powers of the Integrity Commission in order to ‘transform’ it into the ‘State institution’ charged with the responsibility of leading the national strategy against corruption.” We understand that the “beefing up” measures being considered are those that have been recommended by the anti-corruption consultant, Mr Bertrand de Speville, who was here in February on a UNDP assisted visit to advise the Government on its anti-corruption programme. Mr de Speville was a founder and for a time head of Hong Kong’s very successful Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). During his stay he shared with various groups some of the secrets of that institution’s success.

He pointed out that, at the time of the Commission’s founding, Hong Kong was considered to be one of the most corrupt places in Asia. People remarked cynically that “ICAC” stood for “Interference with Chinese Ancient Customs.” Some years later, however, when the new international airport was built, there was no suspicion of corruption in any of the thousand or so contracts awarded. De Speville noted that, to be successful, any anti-corruption plan must first take into account the culture and social structure of the country where it is implemented. And the Hong Kong experience taught that there must above all, be the political will to establish a really effective plan. He stressed that any anti-corruption agency must be given the legal framework and resources enabling it to draft appropriate legislation, conduct thorough investigations and monitor compliance. There must be prompt action taken in the cases which it refers to the DPP. It must also develop and help implement effective corruption prevention measures.

Further, he emphasized the importance of community participation. The anti-corruption agency must involve the private sector and ordinary citizens in its work at various levels, using for example, citizens’ advisory committees. It must also undertake public education that, among other things, helps people to understand clearly that corruption deprives them of a better quality of social services. In Hong Kong this has fostered zero tolerance of corruption at all levels. There is no doubt that we need something like an ICAC here. But we will not have a successful new Integrity Commission if recent history is repeated and the Commission finds itself once again lacking for the human and material resources it needs to do its work. Much more than asset declaration forms will be needed if it is to carry out its expanded role.

Therefore we need, which so far seems to have been sadly lacking, an unambiguous commitment on the part of the government of the day to give it full and on-going support. Another requirement for success is that the all interested groups play a real part in the “beefing up” process. The consultant’s recommendations and the Government’s proposals must be studied and debated widely before any legislation is enacted. And it is hoped that public opinion in favour of the reforms will be strong enough to ensure enough co-operation in Parliament to get the necessary special majority.

BOYD REID
Chairman, TT Transparency Institute