ICAC Early Classic Cases - 26 Public Housing Blocks Case

Fan’s Recording
(In Cantonese)

The Story of Uncle Ho

Ho, an employee of a contractor for about thirty years, was responsible for distributing bribe money at construction sites for his employer. He had remained tight-lipped and evasive when approached by the ICAC. Why would he suddenly turn into a key witness against his boss?

In the preliminary stage of the investigation, Eric Fan Sai-chor and Albert Liu Fu-wing, two members of the ICAC team, ran into a wall of silence put up by Ho. It would be easy to assume that Ho had received substantial rewards from his boss, but the truth was not that.

The loyal employee who took large amounts of bribe money to construction sites for his employer did not even get a pension on his retirement. Persistence by Eric Fan in his belief that Ho was involved in corruption and had obtained advantages, touched a sore point in Ho. When the investigators continued to describe the plights of the residents of the blocks, Ho repented and confessed.

This, Ho said, was how they carried out the corruption scam: The contractor himself would deal with senior officials and Ho the junior ones.

All bribes were paid in cash and as the contractor trusted that Ho would not run away with the money, he was entrusted with taking the bribe money to the construction sites for “his boss” and distributing to the works supervisors and the other personnel. The contractor was generous in offering bribes - cash, wine, furniture and even carpets - but to this loyal employee, he was tight-fisted. When Ho was approaching retirement, the contractor gave him a pay rise to a level that would deprive him of protection by the Labour Ordinance, thereby avoid paying him a pension. Indeed, the only retirement “gifts” Ho received from the contractor were a meal and a key holder.

In subsequent interviews, Eric Fan took a statement of up to 40 pages from Ho.

Seven Months of Restlessness

Ho’s willingness to testify was a great breakthrough to the ICAC team. However, as the investigation was far from fruition, it required a lot of work to ensure that Ho would not “change heart”.

Eric Fan said he had to handle Ho with special care as Ho still had deep affection towards his former boss. He would call Ho at least once a day and, if Ho was in an unstable state of mind, he would listen attentively and try to soothe him. Though Fan was far less experienced than Ho in life, he always played the role of a counselor during that difficult hours and encouraged the latter to stay firm in his decision to testify, which he did.

Ah SUEN

Suen was the other key witness in the case. He joined the government as a project supervisor in 1960 and was promoted to senior works supervisor and technical officer in 1969. In supervising the construction of public housing estates from 1960 to the early 1970s, he received advantages from the three contractors prosecuted by the Court.

By the time the ICAC launched its investigation into the sub-standard public housing works in 1986, Suen had already migrated to Canada.

When Eric Fan and two other investigators travelled to Canada to interview Suen, they only harboured a slim hope of getting some useful information from him. Suen met them in the presence of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers (RCMP) and before every interview commenced, the RCMP officers would explain to him his rights, and remind him that he was not obliged to attend the interview. At first, Suen took an unco-operative attitude but Eric Fan and his colleagues persisted. They told him that the ICAC was conducting an investigation and if they found sufficient evidence they would press charges.

They also told Suen that another site supervisor who used to distribute the “black money” had already disclosed all the facts to the ICAC to his disadvantage.

Eric Fan described Suen took an “about turn” upon hearing this and eventually agreed to stand as a witness in Hong Kong.

After Fan had returned to Hong Kong, his supervisor Anthony Stevens took over the contact with Suen. Stevens went to Canada in February 1987 to discuss Suen’s application for immunity from prosecution. This time Suen was accompanied by his solicitor. Suen told Stevens that the ICAC could only communicate with him through his solicitor from then onwards. He also refused to sign a statement so as to absolve him from any legal liabilities.

Only 80% Confident

On his return to Hong Kong, Stevens could only contact Suen through the solicitor by phone or fax. He admitted that he was only 80% confident Suen would not “change his mind”.

Suen finally made his way to Hong Kong and Stevens picked him up at the airport. To Stevens, this was the most intricate moment in handling the witness ......

Steven’s Recording
(In Cantonese)

Although only two contractors were convicted, the hard-earned result meant a lot to the ICAC officers charged with the investigation. It is only after much effort could the investigations get the court to accept the authenticity of testimonies made by witnesses on happening that occurred some 20 years-ago.

It was only after the successful prosecution of the two main defendants could the officers heave a sign of relief .

There were many testing moments for the team during the investigation, especially when their hard work did not result in any prosecutions initially. However, their determination was hardened after hearing residents of their hardships during a site inspection. They even took four pieces of concrete slabs with them to hang on their office wall to remind them of the plight of the residents.

For the next two years, the pieces of concrete served as a daily reminder of their mission and motivate them to keep going and bring the corrupt to book. They finally prevailed and were awarded an Executive Council commendation in late 1987 and subsequently the Commission’s commendation in 1989.

(Caption: Senior Investigator Fan Sai-Chor depicts in a sketch how his office was full of hanging concrete slabs from the affected blocks back then.)

Fan’s Recording
(In Cantonese)