The Seventh Annual Conference and General Meeting of the
International Association of Anti-Corruption Authorities
Panama City, Republic of Panama
22 - 24 November 2013
Workshop I: Anti-corruption agencies in a changing world:
independence, accountability and transparency
23 November 2013
“Sustaining Anti-Corruption Efficacy Amid
Changing Public Expectations: Hong Kong
Experience”
Ms Julie MU
Director of Community Relations
Independent Commission Against Corruption
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
People's Republic of China
Your Excellencies, Distinguished Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen,
I would like to express my deep appreciation to the National Authority for
Transparency and Access to Information and the Republic of Panama for
hosting this very important Conference. Thank you so much for the warm
hospitality extended to our delegation.
INDEPENDENCE, ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY – CRITICAL
FACTORS FOR SUCCESS OF ACAs
2.
Corruption, whether in the public or private sector, is a serious crime. It is
a social evil that is eroding every fabric of society and undermining the very
foundation of the community. To effectively tackle this social evil, anti-corruption
agencies (ACAs) not only must enforce the law relentlessly, but also need to be
responsive to the demands and expectations of the societies they serve. In this
aspect, they must keep themselves abreast of societal developments and pay
due regard to the public’s aspirations. In meeting challenges arising from
evolving
socio-economic-political
circumstances,
ACAs
must
uphold
independence and strive for increased accountability and transparency. The
experience of the Independent Commission Against Corruption of the Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region (the ICAC) will be able to shed some lights
on how ACAs can sustain their efficacy amid changing public expectations.
3.
First of all, the establishment of the ICAC in 1974 was the result of the
Hong Kong Government’s response to public aspirations - a call for effective
reforms in the anti-corruption regime. With strong political will, the government
decided to set up an independent and dedicated graft fighting agency equipped
with wide ranging powers to combat pervasive corruption at that time. With the
concerted efforts of the Commission, the government and a supportive
community, syndicated corruption was eliminated and the public attitude
towards corruption has changed from that of acceptance to zero tolerance.
1
CORRUPTION SITUATION OF HONG KONG
4.
Today, Hong Kong takes pride in its clean and efficient government and a
fair business environment. Several indicators can back up this observation:

Corruption is firmly under control, in both the public and private
sectors, and there is no sign of deterioration. The number of
corruption complaints received by the ICAC remains stable in recent
years, ranging from 3,500 to 4,000 per annum. In the first 10 months
of this year, there has been a significant drop in the number of
complaints. We believe that the public’s heightened awareness
towards corruption prevention could be one of the factors leading to
a smaller number of corruption reports.

According to ICAC’s annual surveys conducted by independent
research firms, corruption is uncommon in Hong Kong. Last year’s
results found that less than 0.2 percent of the respondents have
personally encountered corruption.

The survey in 2012 also found that the general public demonstrated
an extremely low tolerance of corruption. On a scale of 0 to 10,
where 0 represents absolute rejection of corruption and 10 total
tolerance, the mean score was 0.8.

The Heritage Foundation, in rating Hong Kong as the freest
economy for the 19th consecutive year this year, also recognises “a
strong tradition of minimum tolerance of corruption in Hong Kong”.
According to the Global Competitiveness Index released by the
World Economic Forum in September this year, Hong Kong is
ranked the seventh most competitive place among 148 economies,
with corruption seen as one of the least problematic factors for doing
business.
5.
Hong Kong is widely recognised as one of the cleanest places on the
world map. However, it is unrealistic to assume that corruption has vanished
2
from our soil. On and off, there have been cases attracting grave public
attention. Last year, we saw a former top Hong Kong government official and
business tycoons being prosecuted by the ICAC. Meanwhile, a former Chief
Executive of the Hong Kong Government and an ex-Commissioner of the ICAC
faced investigation for allegations of misconduct and corruption.
6.
One of the prosecutions relates the former “number two” officer of the
Hong Kong Government, i.e. Chief Secretary, and a number of prominent
businessmen for alleged misconduct in public office and conspiracy to bribe.
This case bears testimony that the ICAC pursues the corrupt without fear or
favour, regardless of the official ranking and social status of the people involved.
However, we must stress that this is just an isolated case.
7.
Nonetheless, these cases presented unprecedented challenges to the
ICAC. The public legitimately expects the ICAC to uphold its independence and
impartiality in dealing with allegations against top political leaders, some of
whom were its former bosses. It must also be seen to be doing so.
The
public is gravely concerned about how the Commission maintains its
accountability and transparency in cases that involve immense public interest
and great sensitivity.
SAFEGUARDING INDEPENDENCE AND IMPARTIALITY
8.
Let me first talk about the independence of the ICAC. The Basic Law, a
constitutional document of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
(HKSAR), specifies that the ICAC shall function independently and be
accountable to the Chief Executive of the HKSAR. This constitutional set-up
fends off any possible interference from other governmental authorities and
provides statutory guarantee of the Commission’s independence. However,
corruption allegations concerning the former Chief Executive of the Hong Kong
Government have put the founding principle of the ICAC to severe test because
the head of the Commission reports directly to the Chief Executive.
9.
The ICAC is acutely aware of the public concern over its independence
in this high profile investigation. The ICAC has a statutory duty to conduct
3
inquiry into every corruption case irrespective of the target of complaint. A set of
legal procedures is also in place for the Commission to handle corruption
allegations against the Chief Executive. More specifically, the anti-corruption
law of Hong Kong stipulates that when the ICAC Commissioner has reason to
suspect that the Chief Executive may have committed an offence under that
statute, the Commissioner may refer that matter to the Secretary for Justice,
who, then may refer the matter to the Legislative Council for consideration to
decide whether to give mandate to the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal
to form an independent investigation committee. If the committee considers the
evidence sufficient to substantiate such charges, the Legislative Council may
impeach the Chief Executive by a two-third majority of all its members. These
stringent legal and intricate mechanisms can ensure that the investigation of the
topmost official of Hong Kong, who is also the boss of the anti-corruption
agency, will remain impartial and unbiased.
ENSURING ACCOUNTABILITY
10.
“Accountability” is a catch phrase for modern governments and
government bodies. It is particularly important for ACAs which count on public
support and trust for detecting corruption and building a clean society.
11.
Earlier this year, the ICAC has received corruption complaints against
one of its former Commissioners in regard to alleged mishandling of official
entertainment expenses, gifts and duty visits. To ensure impartiality and
accountability in the highest possible standards, the incumbent Commissioner
has taken an unprecedented move to personally lead a special investigation
unit comprising investigators who have no previous direct working relations with
the former Commissioner. Any officers with perceived or actual conflict of
interests arising from the case have to make formal declaration and were
denied handling or access to the case concerned. The special investigation unit
will seek legal advice from the Director of Public Prosecution. Like any other
cases handled by the ICAC, the progress of the investigation and findings will
be reported to the independent Operations Review Committee (ORC) which is
responsible for monitoring the work of ICAC’s investigation arm.
4
12.
In fact, all cases, including those which will be eventually classified as
non pursuable are carefully considered by ORC on a regular basis. No case,
whether involving pursuable or non pursuable allegations, will be closed by the
ICAC without the endorsement of ORC.
13.
The accounts of the Hong Kong Government, including the ICAC, are
subject to the external scrutiny of the Audit Commission to ensure their
performance and accountability. A report released by the Audit Commission
earlier this year triggered community concerns about ICAC’s internal systems
and procedures in regulating expenditure in entertainment, gifts and duty visits.
The incumbent Chief Executive of Hong Kong set up an independent review
committee (IRC) in May this year to review ICAC’s regulatory systems and
procedures on these matters and the compliance of ICAC staff. The ICAC
accepted all the recommendations of the IRC and will implement all of them as
soon as practicable. In fact, new guidelines were already issued to tighten up
control on spending.
ENHANCING TRANSPARENCY
14.
Corruption is an insidious crime. The detection and investigation of
corruption would necessarily require legitimate confidentiality in order to protect
the integrity of the investigation and the reputation of persons under
investigation. But from time to time, there may exist equally legitimate
expectations from our society for more information about ICAC’s investigation.
So, the real test will be how the ICAC can strike a balance between
safeguarding confidentiality, preserving the integrity of investigation, protecting
the reputation of the subjects of investigation and giving due regard to the
public’s right to know.
15.
It is ICAC’s media policy that generally speaking, we would not comment
on individual cases or on-going investigations. However, in view of exceptional
circumstances, especially when great public interest is involved, the ICAC has
issued press statements to disclose the commencement of investigations
including those against its former Commissioner and a government secretary for
development.
5
16.
In fact, the ICAC always attaches importance to the need to enhance
transparency of its work in response to public expectations. On top of regular
press briefings, media interviews and press releases to update the public on
various anti-corruption initiatives, the ICAC runs its own websites, organises
Open Days and turns some completed cases into TV drama for public
broadcast. To ride on technological advances, the ICAC is going to launch a
smartphone app to enhance public understanding of the Commission’s anticorruption work.
ROBUST CHECK AND BALANCE SYSTEM
17.
Our experience taught us that independence, accountability and
transparency are the main pillars of community support for an anti-corruption
agency. In the case of Hong Kong, apart from the Basic Law and anti-corruption
legislation, there exists a set of robust and elaborate checks and balances,
which regulates the Commission from the outside as well as from the inside.
There are at least six strong safeguards to ensure that the Commission
maintains impartiality and accountability. Let me elaborate them one by one.
Advisory and Independent Committees
18.
External monitoring on the operations of the ICAC and its constituent
departments takes the form of advisory and independent committees. To ensure
public oversight on our work, all the four advisory committees of the ICAC are
chaired by civilians, with members drawn from a wide cross section of our
society including professionals, academics, educators, business executives,
district councillors, as well as legislative councillors. One of these committees,
which plays a watchdog role in scrutinising the investigative work of the
Commission, is the Operations Review Committee that I have mentioned
earlier. There is also an independent committee which monitors and reviews all
non-criminal complaints against the ICAC or its staff.
Department of Justice
19.
The ICAC is empowered to conduct investigations but not prosecution.
The power to prosecute is vested with the Secretary for Justice. Each
6
prosecution is decided by the Department of Justice based on its prosecution
policy and independent judgment.
Judiciary
20.
An independent judiciary ensures that the ICAC does not step out of line.
We are required to seek prior court approval for exercising certain powers, and
will carefully consider comments from the court and conduct reviews on
operational procedures to avoid misuse of power.
Legislative Council
21.
The Legislative Council is vested with the authority of conferring and
repealing the powers of the ICAC. The ICAC Commissioner is required to
answer to the Council on policy and funding matters. The monitoring role of the
Legislative Council may best be illustrated by the inquiries carried out by its
Public Accounts Committee on a value for money report relating to the
Community Relations Department of the ICAC and a Select Committee
specially formed to look into allegations concerning the former ICAC
Commissioner.
Internal monitoring
22.
An internal investigation and monitoring unit has long been established
within the ICAC to probe all allegations of corruption and related offences
against our staff. All criminal complaints against staff are brought to the
attention of the Secretary for Justice, who will decide whether they should be
investigated by the ICAC or other law enforcement agencies. All completed
investigations are reported to the Secretary for Justice and the Operations
Review Committee.
Media
23.
Last but not least, the ICAC is subject to close public scrutiny through the
mass media which keeps a close eye on the operations of the Government.
7
MEETING CHALLENGES AHEAD
24.
Distinguished
delegates,
nowadays
graft
busters
are
facing
unprecedented challenges on various fronts in fighting corruption. Part of the
challenge, of course, comes from the increased sophistication of corruption and
the intelligence of the corrupt. Challenges also arise from increased public
concerns over the protection of human rights and personal privacy, effective
checks on the exercise of powers by law enforcement agencies, and demands
for the integrity of public officials and the ACAs to comply with the highest
standard of effectiveness and integrity.
25.
Since its inception in the 1970s, the ICAC has embraced various
challenges due to social changes and public demands. In the 1990s, the ICAC
went through two comprehensive reviews: (i) in 1991, all legislations relating to
the ICAC were reviewed to ensure their compatibility with the newly enacted Bill
of Rights Ordinance; and (ii) an independent ICAC Review Committee
conducted another review on ICAC’s powers and accountability in 1994. The
latter had resulted in the transfer of most of the Commissioner’s powers to the
courts. For example, ICAC now must file applications with the court to obtain
search warrants or orders to restrain a suspect’s property. The Interception of
Communications and Surveillance Ordinance (ICSO) which came into force in
2006 provides a strict legal framework and sets new parameters for law
enforcement agencies, including the ICAC in conducting interceptions and
covert surveillance operations. The ICAC remains committed to ensuring full
compliance with the new requirements under ICSO while rigorously pursuing
the corruption cases.
26.
We have taken all these challenges in a positive and responsible
manner. Our anti-corruption system remains sound and vibrant, and the ICAC
has emerged even stronger every time. In terms of operational efficacy, the
average conviction rate of ICAC cases in recent years hovers at 80%. At the
same time, the Commission continues to win the trust of the community as
reflected in a consistently high public support rate of 98-99% according to
independent opinion surveys.
8
27.
The latest controversies surrounding former ICAC Commissioner and
revelations
about
administrative
and
regulatory
inadequacies
of
the
Commission triggered a new wave of challenges to the ICAC. As a responsive
and progressive ACA, the Commission continues to strictly adhere to the law
and relies on the well established checks and balances mechanism to ensure
its impartiality and accountability. We also stay sensitive to changing public
expectations and makes continuous endeavours to strengthen our internal
governance.
28.
Although the social, economic and political circumstances may vary in
different societies, it is universal to all ACAs that the public expects us to carry
out our mission in an impartial manner while remaining accountable and
transparent. ACAs from around the world must continue to share experience
through regular exchanges in facing these challenges which will make us
stronger and more effective in the long run. I hope my presentation has
achieved this purpose.
29.
Thank you.
9