Increase font size | Reduce font size

www.icac.org.hk

 

Oct 2016,
Issue No.24

 

Previous Issues

Feedback

Interview with Acting Head of Operations


Moving forward without fear or favour

Acting Head of Operations Mr Ricky Yau
Acting Head of Operations Mr Ricky Yau
With the community’s support, the ICAC, after 42 years of hard efforts, has turned Hong Kong into one of the cleanest places in the world. However, the recent senior staff reshuffle at the Operations Department has stirred up immense public concerns. The ICAC Post talks to Acting Head of Operations Mr Ricky Yau who gives an update on the work of his department to dispel public worries.



ICAC Post – Post
Ricky Yau – Yau



Post: Has the senior staff reshuffle in any way affected the work of the Operations Department in fighting corruption vigilantly?

Yau: The ICAC was established 42 years ago. The organisation has in place a set of comprehensive mechanism and procedures for handling investigative work. The mechanism runs smoothly and proves to be effective over the years. The most important thing is that our belief and standard in enforcing the law remain steadfast and consistent. They will not change because of personnel movements.

More than two months have lapsed since I took up my post as Acting Head of Operations on July 18. My observation is that officers of the Operations Department continue to perform their duties conscientiously. They continue to carry out their work fairly, without fear or favour, in a professional manner and in strict accordance with the law. Regardless of the background, status and position of persons or organisations involved, we vigorously and impartially enforce the law in a bid to crack down on the crime of corruption.

Moreover, the work of the Operations Department continues to be under the effective monitoring of the independent Operations Review Committee (ORC). Pursuant to its terms of reference, the ORC regularly receive from the department information about all complaints of corruption and the manner in which the Commission deals with them; progress reports on all investigations lasting more than a year or requiring substantial resources; reports on all cases where suspects have been bailed for more than six months; reports on completed investigations [including those cases in which the Department of Justice (DoJ) recommends no prosecution]; and reports on the results of prosecutions or any subsequent appeals.

The Operations Department continues to maintain close liaison with the DoJ and seek its legal advice in the course of our work. Between July and September this year, the Commission prosecuted a total of 81 persons for corruption and related crimes. These cases will be dealt with in courts over time. Meanwhile, a total of 36 persons were convicted in the same period. These figures reflect that our law enforcement work remains effective and our officers have not slackened despite the recent staff reshuffle.



Post: Some people have cast doubts over the impartiality of the ORC. Some even said the ICAC’s investigative work might have been interfered. What are your views?

Yau: The operation of the ICAC is subject to a stringent mechanism of checks and balances. Investigations, prosecutions and trials in courts are independent of each other. Four independent advisory committees, the Legislative Council and the media also play an important role in monitoring the work of the Commission.

As one of the advisory committees, the ORC scrutinizes the investigative work of the Operations Department. Apart from four ex-officio members, other members, who are appointed by the Chief Executive, come from different sectors and background including the legislature, professionals, business leaders, academics and other distinguished persons. In fact, a monitoring mechanism like the ORC is rare in the anti-corruption regimes of other countries or places.

Let me elaborate a bit on the ORC mechanism as members of the public may not be familiar with its actual operation. The ORC chairman is responsible for chairing meetings. All case information provided by the ICAC to its members (including the chairman) is identical. Members of the ORC can question and express their opinions on the cases put before them. Pursuant to their terms of reference, they jointly scrutinise the investigative work of the ICAC, free of interference or hindrance. Moreover, under the existing declaration system, should an ORC member encounter a conflict of interest situation, he/she must make a declaration so that an appropriate arrangement, such as recusing from the meeting, may be made.



Post: You sought an early resolution of agreement, but later withdrew it. Can you give us a frank account of what happened?

Yau: My decision to seek for resolution and subsequent withdrawal hinged on one and the same consideration: the interest of the ICAC. On July 7 this year, the Commission announced the imminent departure of the then Acting Head of Operations. Around the time, the incident had aroused much public concern. There were speculations that the incident might be related to ICAC investigative work which, in turn, called into question whether the successor could lead the Operations Department to carry out its duties in a fair and just manner.

Although the negative public perception was based on mere speculations not supported by facts, the perception touched on the ICAC’s core value of enforcing the law without fear or favour. Moreover, the perception was formed before I took up my post and could hardly be reversed. Having carefully assessed the situation, I was of the view that if I took up the post, the Operations Department would be subject to even more public queries, and the credibility of the Commission would be further undermined as a result.

Having considered the interest of the ICAC, I made a verbal application to the Commissioner for an early resolution of agreement on July 11, and tendered a written application to him the following day. I was to proceed on final leave on August 1, so as to allow time for the Commissioner to make appropriate personnel arrangements. On July 29 before the Commission made the public announcement about my departure, I met with senior officers of the Operations Department to let them know my departure and explain my decision in detail. Colleagues expressed various views at the meeting, in particular their worries that my departure would deal a severe blow to the operation of the department, further shaking public confidence in the ICAC. They strongly appealed to me that I should remain in office. Having considered such a genuine plea from my colleagues and the overall interest of the Commission, I decided to withdraw my application for a resolution of agreement from the Commissioner. The Commissioner, who had all along requested me to stay, approved my withdrawal request.

Although the recent staff reshuffle has caused immense public concern, it is my firm belief that members of the public will continue to support the ICAC’s anti-corruption work. Our officers in the Operations Department will continue to hold the fort and discharge their duties impartially and in accordance with the law.