Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The Roman poet Juvenal posed the question: 'Who watches the watchmen?' When Sir Murray MacLehose established the Independent Commission Against Corruption, its priority was to root out corruption in the Royal Hong Kong Police Force, a task it achieved with considerable success.
A key element in this success was the backbone of former Criminal Investigation Department officers recruited from various British police forces. They carried no local baggage, no legacy of past obligations - just skill, experience and integrity. Answering directly to the governor, they were proud of their independence from government. These qualities brought about the transformation of Hong Kong's police into the relatively corruption-free force that it is today.
The ICAC became a byword for integrity. But how valid is that reputation today and who watches the watchmen?
The creation of an elite law enforcement body carries the risk that this very elitism breeds an arrogance best characterised as a sense of untouchability. The temptation to manufacture or suppress evidence in order to secure a conviction is a constant threat not only to the integrity of the officers but to the prosecution itself.
If there is truth in the latest allegations of ICAC officers trying to compel a witness to tailor his evidence to its requirements, it speaks of a frightening abuse of power. In the case brought against barrister Kevin Egan and solicitor Andrew Lam Ping-cheung, it was alleged that the ICAC destroyed a critical record of a tapped telephone conversation in its custody.
A single incident might be disregarded, but all three reports of the panel of judges appointed to oversee covert surveillance operations demonstrate that ICAC officers flagrantly ignore both the spirit and the letter of the legislation designed to protect the public from illegitimate telephone intercepts, especially privileged lawyer-client communications.