• Thu
  • Dec 18, 2014
  • Updated: 7:28pm
CommentInsight & Opinion

ICAC must act on Donald Tsang case or risk further damage to reputation

Grenville Cross says the ICAC needs to act openly and decisively on the drawn-out investigation into Donald Tsang, or risk further undermining its reputation and confidence in the legal system

PUBLISHED : Tuesday, 25 February, 2014, 4:44am
UPDATED : Tuesday, 25 February, 2014, 4:44am

Delay in justice," said Walter Savage Landor, "is injustice." As the Independent Commission Against Corruption, with justifiable pride, celebrates its 40th anniversary , it is timely to recall its core values of efficiency, professionalism and courage, as epitomised by its founding father, Sir Jack Cater, the first commissioner. Although the techniques of law enforcement have changed greatly since 1974, the need for the ICAC to use its powers wisely and to ensure just outcomes has not.

Criminal investigations should, if possible, be handled expeditiously, not least because suspects need to know their fate within a reasonable time. If high-profile cases are unreasonably delayed, it can also fuel public concern and undermine confidence in the legal system.

Of course, some investigations are vast, and, even with the best will in the world, it may be impossible to hurry things along. Some fraud cases, for example, involve many suspects, a mass of evidence and inquiries around the globe. Most cases, however, are not in this category, and investigators must minimise delays. Of late, however, some sensitive cases have simply disappeared into an abyss, most notably that of the former chief executive, Donald Tsang Yam-kuen.

Exactly two years ago, Tsang was referred to the ICAC for investigation over allegations that he had accepted undue advantages from tycoons. Although they were sensational, the allegations fell within a narrow compass, centring on alleged improprieties in Hong Kong, Macau and Shenzhen. It should, within months, have been possible for the ICAC to interview witnesses, examine records and decide if the case was pursuable.

Moreover, the ICAC's highly regarded director of operations, Daniel Li Ming-chak, who had been due to retire in April 2012, agreed to remain in the post for a further three months to handle the Tsang investigation. Li, presumably, wrapped things up before he departed in July 2012; otherwise, he would have stayed on longer. The ICAC, however, has remained tight-lipped ever since on the progress of the case, and the silence is now deafening.

Last August, when the retiring director of public prosecutions was urged to be more proactive and to clear his backlog of cases, he claimed that the Tsang investigation was "near completion". This, however, was not confirmed by the ICAC, and smacked instead of wishful thinking. Six months on, the case is still outstanding.

The investigation may, of course, have died, in which case the public should be told. The ICAC, with its fine traditions, must certainly not allow internal problems or concerns over a public backlash to override its duty to openly account for its conduct of cases. Nobody will understand this better than the current director of operations, Ryan Wong Sai-chiu, a principled veteran, but the fact that even he has not been able to move things along is a real concern and may suggest that other forces are at play.

The ICAC's Operations Review Committee, chaired by Michael Sze Cho-cheung, a former secretary for the civil service, oversees corruption investigations, and it is high time for the committee to show its mettle and finalise the investigation. After all, the delay in Tsang's case, together with the scandal over the alleged misuse of public money by former commissioner Timothy Tong Hin-ming, a Tsang appointee, has already damaged the ICAC's standing. Sze must now prove that his committee is not just another paper tiger.

Last month, Sze expressed concerns over possible corruption among the post-2000 generation of civil servants, who no longer have a government pension to fall back on, and he, of all people, must surely realise that the proper handling of the Tsang and Tong cases will send a strong message to the new recruits that they must behave themselves.

The current commissioner, Simon Peh Yun-lu, revealed last month that the number of corruption complaints received last year had dropped by a third, the biggest fall ever. Last year, an opinion poll also showed that the public perception of the extent to which Hong Kong is corruption-free had fallen to a 15-year low.

Everyone who values the ICAC must be concerned at this news, and, between them, Peh and Sze must restore credibility. Peh, after all, is not a mere figurehead, and the time has surely come for him, as the successor to Sir Jack Cater, to show the public worth.

When Tsang's case finally reaches the Department of Justice, the ICAC should say so, to demonstrate due process. The new DPP, Keith Yeung Kar-hung, must then prioritise it. After independent legal advice has been sought, an early decision is vital, so that the public can see that justice has, ultimately, been done, despite the unconscionable delay.

Thereafter, lessons must be learned. In particular, Peh and Sze must review their procedures to ensure that the kind of delays that have dogged Tsang's case never again arise. After all, the ICAC investigation of Tong began on May 14 last year, and, nine months on, people are already beginning to ask about progress. There must be no repetition of the inglorious Tsang saga.

Grenville Cross SC, an honorary professor of law at the University of Hong Kong, is the vice-chairman of the senate of the International Association of Prosecutors. The views expressed are those of the author


For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive



This article is now closed to comments

It may be a hot potato to be juggled among the officials. The long silence on the case is as much a reflection of the general public – couldn't care less so to speak. Hong Kong has had collusion practice long enough to become part of life really. Singling a past Chief Executive for collusion is almost unfair. Besides, collusion is not a statuary crime. But nevertheless it is even worse than corruption.
Agree, agree. Why is nothing heard on the ICAC investigation of Donald Tsang? Or of its past chief Timothy Tong? At least we know investigation of the past finance minister and the Sun Hung Kai brothers are underway.
I guess the reason the number of complaints dropped last year, even though the public perception is that corruption has increased, is because people no longer perceive that the ICAC is capable of doing its job properly.
Two plausible reasons: Beijing does not want the embarrassment of the second CE in prison after the first was forced to resign due to a 500,000 person protest march. The second is the problem is so pervasive that the truth, if made public, would shake our belief in clean govt. (at least for those still naive enough to believe our govt. is not up to its eyeballs in collusion).
need to investors datu busran kalaw mining. philippines.
need to investors datu busran kalaw mining. philippines.
I'm starting to get the feeling that the ICAC is another lame-duck organization that only serves to let the public "believe" they exist for dealing with corruption..........in fact, they are just as corrupted themselves.
ICAC Ordinance CAP 204:
"Section: 5 Heading: Office of Commissioner Version Date: 09/05/2003
(1) The Commissioner, subject to the orders and control of the Chief Executive, shall be responsible for the direction and administration of the Commission. (Replaced 1 of 2003 s. 3)
(2) The Commissioner shall not be subject to the direction or control of any person other than the Chief Executive.
(3) The Commissioner shall hold office on such terms and conditions as the Chief Executive may think fit."
There is an ever increasing smell of Government collusion with vested special interests, senior appointed officials behave in ever more arbitrary and secret ways, knowing they are not accountable. Suspicion of political interference is widespread. Perception of high level official corruption is growing.
The Chief Executive's powers of appointment and patronage are so extensive they contain massive potential for abuse. Qui custodes ipsos custodiet?
Could the ICAC do any good ?
Its former Chief Mr. Tong asked the Legco, loud and clear " If I had breached the law, what law have I breached ? " Who gave what reply ?
His mentor, Mr. Tsang could ask the same thing ,"What law have I breached ?"
The Prevention of Bribery Ordinance does not apply to him. Why ?
Ask the Legco members themselves.
Hey, if the Masters up north can go after Zhou Yongkang, then tiny little HK should be able to come clean on Bowtie...



SCMP.com Account