“I served in the ICAC for 29 years, and I have no regrets whatsoever. I feel extremely honored to have been part of this silent revolution, contributing to the integrity establishment in Hong Kong,” said Stephen Char Shik Ngor, former Chief Investigator of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), in an interview with The Epoch Times.
“Then Governor Sir Murray MacLehose was determined to establish the ICAC to combat corruption, which was a very commendable policy. Without addressing corruption issues, Hong Kong would never have achieved the prosperity it enjoys later.”
With 29 years of professional experience, Mr. Char witnessed how the ICAC deeply influenced Hong Kong society, transforming it from a heavily corrupted place to a globally recognized honest city.
Joining a Silent Revolution
“When I was young, my family was very poor, and I worked as a street vendor. I had to pay protection money even to sell things on the street, so I strongly identified with the injustice caused by corruption. I always hoped to join the ICAC.”Mr. Char recalled that Sir Jack Cater, the first Commissioner of the ICAC, often said, “You are not here to do a job; you are here to join a silent revolution. We aim to reverse the corruption situation in Hong Kong and turn it into an honest city.”
This statement resonated with him. In 1976, Mr. Char joined the ICAC with aspirations.
During the 1960s and 1970s, corruption in Hong Kong severely affected people’s lives, where citizens had to pay bribes for almost every interaction with government departments. Apart from the police being heavily involved in prostitution and gambling, even ambulance drivers would demand “tea money” before transporting patients to hospitals, and firefighters would expect payment before turning on water hoses to extinguish fires.
The Godber case that happened later triggered strong reactions from Hong Kong citizens. Peter Godber, a senior British colonial officer and corrupt official, served as a Chief Superintendent of the Royal Hong Kong Police Force and successfully fled to the UK in 1973 to evade an internal investigation into his alleged corruption and bribery.
The event led then-Governor Murray MacLehose to establish the ICAC in 1974, which successfully extradited Godber back to Hong Kong for trial and gave him a four-year imprisonment.
ICAC’s Name Scared Gangsters
In films and TV series depicting the backdrop of the 1970s, the ICAC was often featured, and conflicts between the Commission and the police force were particularly memorable.Mr. Char empathized while watching these productions, since some characters’ experiences mirrored his own. Hong Kong director Tommy Tam once made a movie about ICAC, in which the main character, the head of an investigation team in the ICAC’s Operations Department, was modelled on Mr. Char.
Mr. Char chuckled when saying that he was never threatened or intimidated by corrupt individuals. However, in the early days of his work, he felt immense pressure because corruption in Hong Kong was rampant, requiring comprehensive efforts to combat it.
Through diligent efforts, the ICAC established credibility in Hong Kong.
“When I mentioned the ICAC, those corrupt individuals would immediately tremble with fear. Once, I went to apprehend a group of gangsters involved in loan sharking and extortion, accompanied by my colleagues opposite the place where they collected their illicit money,” he recalled.
Amnesty to Rehabilitate Corrupt Officials
One of Mr. Char’s most memorable incidents occurred on Oct. 28, 1977, when a large group of police officers demonstrated at the Wan Chai Police Headquarters and later attempted to storm the ICAC.“They tried to rush into the ICAC. It was very tense. Our colleagues blocked the door, and everyone went to the armory to get guns. It was a potentially explosive situation, but fortunately, they retreated.”
After careful consideration, Sir MacLehose decided to compromise and issued a partial amnesty order on Nov. 5, 1977. It announced that except for those who had been interrogated, wanted, or were abroad, anyone who committed corruption before Jan. 1, 1977, would not be prosecuted.
Mr. Char believed that the amnesty policy gave corrupt individuals a chance to reform.
“When the amnesty was announced, there were different opinions. We, as ICAC personnel, initially opposed it because we felt it was unjust. But from a broader perspective, for the long-term good of Hong Kong, the amnesty was effective, so eventually, we supported it,” he said.
Since the establishment of the ICAC, foreigners who come to work or do business in Hong Kong only need to abide by the rules without any “unwritten rules.” Hongkongers also gained a sense of pride, as citizens could report injustices to the ICAC.
Mr. Char argued that the ICAC had a significant impact on Hong Kong’s culture, as it was constantly “changing people’s attitudes toward corruption.”
“If the public wants to live in a fair and just society, the community must establish an honest and clean system, and corruption must be vigorously combated. If the people do not feel justice, will they live happily?”
Teaching CCP Officials Lesson
The ICAC’s success attracted both mainland China and Taiwan. Over a decade ago, at the arrangement of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)’s State Council and the University of Hong Kong, many high-ranking officials from the mainland would visit Hong Kong annually to draw experience.Mr. Char, whose training theme was Hong Kong’s integrity-building and anti-corruption experience, once raised a question while training a group of mid-level or higher-ranking court judges: “I heard that some judges in the mainland have dinner with defendants and their lawyers one day, and with plaintiffs and their lawyers the next. How do you see this?”
Back then, a well-known judge from a mid-level people’s court didn’t think much of it and said that they were just classmates.
Mr. Cha replied, “Thinking there’s no problem is the problem itself. You are a judge, yet you don’t understand what it means to avoid suspicion. Why would you have dinner with the lawyers of both the plaintiff and the defendant when you are presiding over a case?”
“After work, Hong Kong judges sometimes go to bars for leisure. If they see lawyers for the plaintiff or the defendant upon entering, they will leave immediately, because if they stay and chat, they lose the right to preside over the case. This is called avoiding suspicion.”
“You may be catching up, but people will immediately associate it with the fact that you may be talking about this case and how much money the parties are giving.”
‘Leaders’ in China, ‘Public Servants’ in Hong Kong
Mr. Char also introduced the concept of asset recovery to mainland Chinese officials and provided them with anti-corruption advice:“I told them that if China wants to combat corruption, one thing they need to clarify is whether ‘civil servants are officials or not.’ In Hong Kong, civil servants are called ‘public servants.’ If you call them officials, it’s hard to combat corruption. Changing the mindset is essential,” he said.
“There is a leadership culture in the mainland. In Hong Kong, sorry, we don’t have a leadership culture. We are all equal.”
Mr. Char believed that while corruption in mainland China today has improved compared to twenty years ago, whether the improvement is sufficient remains uncertain.
Establishing Mechanisms Bridging Hong Kong & Taiwan
In addition to mainland China, Mr. Char is also very concerned about Taiwan’s integrity building. He was one of the earliest to bring Hong Kong’s anti-corruption experience to Taiwan and help it establish an integrity system.During the British colonial era, since the UK did not recognize Taiwan, there were no official exchanges between Hong Kong and Taiwan. However, private interactions abounded.
At that time, a criminal fled to Taiwan from Hong Kong, and the ICAC hoped to establish a mutual assistance relationship with Taiwan. Without official channels, ICAC personnel visited Taiwan discreetly.
Through the efforts of Mr. Char and others, the ICAC and Taiwan’s Investigation Bureau, which is responsible for investigating corruption, began to cooperate. Many criminals were brought to justice through this channel.
“Since then, I have established a bridge between Hong Kong and Taiwan. Everyone helped each other because our goal was all about dealing with criminals,” he said.
During Ma Ying-jeou’s tenure as Minister of Justice of Taiwan, he once discussed Taiwan’s integrity building with Mr. Char. After Mr. Ma became President of Taiwan, Mr. Cha served as an advisor to Wang Chien-shien, President of the Control Yuan, as well as an advisor to Wang Ching-feng, Minister of Justice. During his advisory period, Mr. Char had already left the ICAC and often traveled to Taiwan at his own expense to give talks on integrity.
In 2008, Mr. Char suggested that Taiwan establish an independent anti-corruption agency like Hong Kong and be directly under the president’s office.
“Unfortunately, Taiwan later accepted only half of my suggestion, moving the anti-corruption department out of the Investigation Bureau to establish a dedicated anti-corruption agency. It was slightly different from my initial suggestion because the Investigation Bureau still reports to the Executive Yuan, resulting in insufficient strength. I hope they will modify it in the future.”
On July 20, 2011, Taiwan’s Agency Against Corruption was officially established, with the idea modeled after the ICAC. While the ICAC is directly responsible to the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, Taiwan’s Agency Against Corruption is an enforcement agency under the Ministry of Justice, triggering concerns about potential political interference.
Mr. Char symbolically charged only 1 New Taiwan Dollar or 1 Chinese Yuan as an annual advisory fee, making officials from both sides of the Taiwan Strait grateful.
To this, Mr. Char smiled and said, “I don’t need fame or money. If I can help you, I think it is the greatest honor of my life. I told officials in Taiwan and Beijing that if I could help our country establish integrity in my lifetime, it would be truly valuable and meaningful.”
