Hong Kong Legislative Council needs stronger role when it comes to chief executive probe
However, increased Legco involvement in the ICAC’s work leads to potentially increased bad politicisation
Recent headlines describe the supposedly ominous forces at work at (and on) the ICAC. Were Rebecca Li Bo-lan and other colleagues on the heels of a red-hot anti-corruption investigation of Hong Kong’s chief executive? Or has media hype whipped up yet another tempest in a teapot?
It may be time to review what we know about “decoronating” a sitting head of government on corruption charges. How does Hong Kong handle it? How do other countries deal with it? And how should we deal with it in the future – whether for Leung Chun-ying or his successors?
Hong Kong’s anti-corruption law seems to be up to the task of catching a corrupt chief executive. As the Independent Commission Against Corruption makes abundantly clear on its website, it clearly has the duty to investigate complaints about corruption involving the chief executive.
A supposedly independent Operations Review Committee must supposedly hear about any resulting investigation. Once evidence worthy of a conviction emerges, the justice secretary can inform the Legislative Council.
The sticking point comes from the chief executive’s influence over the ICAC. Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance makes clear who wears the pants in the commissioner-chief executive relationship. The commissioner remains “subject to the orders and control of the chief executive”.