Then & now: More equal than others
That Hong Kong's elite escape prosecution on the thinnest of defence arguments feeds public perception of official graft, writes Jason Wordie
Equality before the law has historically been one of Hong Kong's key strengths - and fictions. Likewise, the government continues to insist that official venality is minimal and that the Independent Commission Against Corruption firmly prosecutes those cases that do arise. Nevertheless, public perceptions of widespread, top-level corruption have increased.
When the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance was proposed in 1970, it was vigorously opposed by the Heung Yee Kuk, the New Territories consultative body that controls affairs in those parts of Hong Kong where - even today - the government's writ barely runs.
Leading rural kingpins objected strongly to suggestions that they should not be permitted to give lavish meals and other gifts to government officials as this practice was - wait for it - a "long-standing Chinese custom". So effective was the lobbying by these charming rustics that introduction of the ordinance was stalled - and its letter significantly modified to accommodate their interests.
Certain categories of public official have been conveniently excluded from anti-corruption provisions. Hong Kong's chief executive, for example, is not bound by civil-service regulations, which creates the curious anomaly of what happens - or, more pertinently, doesn't happen - when a chief executive drawn from the ranks of the civil service solicits and accepts personal advantage in public office. As has been observed, activities which, for a civil servant, would normally lead to disgrace, dismissal and probable imprisonment, go unprosecuted.
Octogenarian crooks are also still spared court appearances - and almost certain jail time - on grounds of age, physical illness or alleged mental infirmity. These ruses also avoid the wider embarrassment that would surely follow from public examination of some of their misdeeds.
Decisions not to prosecute, all too often, have less to do with the likelihood of obtaining a conviction than the broader damage that public airing of filthy linen might cause.