NOT long after I joined the Commerce and Industry Department in 1954, I had the task of developing the official certification of origin system. Exports were certified as being of Hong Kong origin with export markets levying duty rates which were generally lower than those applied to Chinese origin goods. Many countries applied restrictions against Hong Kong and often individual ones would demand special certification from the Hong Kong Government amounting to discrimination against the territory's products. Legislation was enacted to back all the various forms of origin documentation and later, textile quota control documents, to safeguard our rapidly expanding, export-orientated industrial sector. Part of the reason for the doubts often expressed by countries about the origin of the products was that Hong Kong was a free port with virtually no restrictions on imports and exports including re-exports. There was, predictably and reasonably, a feeling foreign goods, and particularly those from China, could be re-marked, re-packaged and re-exported as being of Hong Kong origin. And at that time, non-government agencies issuing certificates of origin were not members of a system whereby the Hong Kong Government undersigned their authenticity. The United States, rapidly becoming our largest export market, applied rigid certification controls against China at the outbreak of the Korean War. It had an active office in Hong Kong to ensure compliance with the very strict, and sometimes very foolish, prohibition on the use of Chinese raw materials and components in Hong Kong-produced goods. My department was obliged to operate a special form of certification for a wide range of products destined for the US market. I could write a volume about the constant struggle we had to try to ensure the US special requirements were not abused. We did our best but quite often our best was not good enough. There were many occasions when Chinese raw materials were in fact used. Local manufacturers had no alternative if they wished to do business. There was never a thought the barrier could not be overcome. It was simply a question of how. Even today, I can remember some of these interesting dilemmas for some of our determined manufacturers. For example, Chinese hair was essential for the production of wigs for the US market. Our wig industry rapidly expanded and at one time was exporting wigs worth several hundred million dollars a year, employing nearly 40,000 workers. During our investigations, we discovered Chinese hair was exported to Southeast Asian countries and re-exported to Hong Kong. The Chinese hair thus became Southeast Asian hair and the wig industry flourished. In the many hundreds of investigations carried out to ensure certification was accurate, I was often surprised by the effort and ingenuity put into the attempts to falsify information and use banned materials. There were even attempts made to bribe corrupt officers. In a way I could understand the reasons for attempting to break the law. And the tremendous skill and organisation which went into these nefarious activities was sometimes breathtaking. If it had been applied to legitimate business, Hong Kong might have been an economic megastar long before it was. Despite extensive counter corruption efforts, there is no doubt that over a period of some years syndicated corruption became serious. In other words, groups of officers responsible for ensuring factories operated within the rules were together accepting an agreed fee for each visit or export consignment. Syndicated corruption is always the most difficult to discover and to prosecute as all involved are usually willing participants. If the racket is large enough, triad elements can quickly become involved. Eventually, government procedures, the law and the documents which are issued become worthless. In such a situation, the industry may find itself in severe difficulty if malpractice, through corruption, becomes endemic. For over 20 years in the Commerce and Industry Department and now the Customs Department, my colleagues and I took every action open to us to root out corruption, to prosecute or dismiss offenders, and to bring home to trade and industry in Hong Kong it should not fear us. We encouraged companies to report corrupt attempts and we had a measure of success. I BELIEVE we were far ahead of our time with our message which was listened to with respect by manufacturers and traders. I was often in trouble with my superiors for initiating anti-corruption action which had not been adequately authorised or which was frowned on by the Attorney-General. I spoke out publicly and was severely reprimanded by the Colonial Secretary. Only the intervention of my department head saved me from further serious trouble. Long afterwards, I found he had put his own job on the line for me. Thank God for Alistair Blair-Kerr and those who decided he should study and report on this menace to society. Thank God, in a different way, Peter Godber chose to flee the territory so the whole issue could be brought into the full glare of public scrutiny. Thank God, also, that Jack Cater and his merry men did what was required of them. There is no compromise with corruption. Corrupt practice does not oil the wheels of commerce or industry. It is a deadly disease and it can become endemic and life threatening. We must fight against it in every way we can.