Corruption and Reforms in
Colonial Hong Kong
Florence Mok

Nanyang Assistant Professor of History,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore“Drive against corruption in Hong Kong under way.” Allegations of bribery and corruption in Hong Kong police and public service: including
extradition proceedings against Peter Godber, former Chief Superintendent of Police. January 1-December 31, 1974.

By the 1960s, bureaucratic corruption waswidespread in different departments within theBritish colonial government in Hong Kong. However,many officials believed that corruption was part of
the Chinese culture, which derived from the culturalemphasis on ‘relationships’ rather than ‘law andregulations’.1 The absence of a direct communication
channel and language barriers between thecolonial government and the Chinese communities
exacerbated the problem of corruption, affecting thelivelihood of many at the grassroots level. In 1974,
the Independent Commission Against Corruption(ICAC) was finally formed with the goal to eradicate
corruption in the colonial administration. The reform
is considered by scholars to be one of the mostimportant developments in Hong Kong in the postwar period.2 Major anti-corruption reforms wereintroduced in Hong Kong only after the emergence ofvarious social movements. This indicates that theselegislative and institutional changes were responses
to shifting public sentiments. Gale’s digital archive
China and the Modern World: Hong Kong, Britain,and China, Part II: 1965-1993 thoroughly covers theprevalence of corruption in post-war Hong Kong,changing public opinion, and why the institutional
reform was implemented in 1974.

institutional reforms, separating the anti-corruption
branch from the police. The public discourse inparticular became extremely heated when Peter
Godber, the Deputy District Police Commander inKowloon, managed to escape from Hong Kong when
he was put under a watchlist after evidence wasfound, suggesting that he had a huge amount ofunexplained wealth. The shifting popular sentiments
were captured by the FCO files on corruption. For
instance, in FCO 40/453, we can see the Hong Kong
Federation of Students petitioned both the Prime
Minister, Edward Heath and the opposition leader
in the Parliament, Harold Wilson, and expressed

Changing Popular Sentiments
Since the inception of the post-war period, a numberof anti-corruption measures had been introduced
to curb the problem. For instance, in 1948, the AntiCorruption and Narcotics Branch was formed. In thesame year, the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance
was also enacted, stating that if a person possessed
pecuniary resources which were disproportionate tohis source of income but failed to explain the wealth,magistrates would consider this as the evidence ofcorruption.3 However, corruption remained a serious
problem because investigations were carried out
by the police force, which were notoriously corrupt.
By the early 1970s, as scandals about corruption
within the police force caught the attention of thepublic, there were increased calls in the society for

Letter of petition from Hong Kong Federation of Students to Prime Minister
Edward Heath on the extradition of Godber, 17 August 1973 (FCO 40/453/35).

1 Ray Yep, 靜默革命:香港廉政百年共業 (Silent Revolution: 100 Years of Development of Hong Kong in Anti-Corruption), Chung Hwa Book Co. (Hong Kong,2014), pp. 7-8.
2 See for example, Ray Yep, ‘The Crusade against Corruption in Hong Kong in the 1970s: Governor MacLehose as a Zealous Reformer or ReluctantHero?’, China Information 27:2 (2013), p. 198; and Florence Mok, Covert Colonialism: Governance, Surveillance and Political Culture in British Hong Kong, cc.
1966-97, Manchester University Press (Manchester, 2023), chapter 3.
3 Yep, Silent Revolution, p. 197.

anger over Britain’s reluctance to extradite Godber.4
The student organisation even tried to cooperatewith some local left-wing organisations, such as
International Marxist Group, Fourth International,International Socialists, Labour Party Young
Socialists, Social Labour League and Solidarity, tomobilise public opinions in the UK and press for theextradition of Godber.5 The FCO files also recorded
actions initiated by the student organisation in
Hong Kong. For example, public forums, rallies andsignature campaigns were organised, and posters
were put up. A satirical poster portrayed Godber
as a man who was ‘podgy’ and had a hobby of‘collecting $500 notes’. He had the power of being‘able to move in and out freely under supervision’due to his ‘extraordinary friendship with world’s big
financial bosses’.6
Some politicians also acted as individual campaigners
and pressed for anti-corruption reforms in HongKong. Elsie Elliott (later known as Elsie Tu), forexample, was an active campaigner who started
her ‘anti-corruption crusade’ since the 1960s. FCO
40/554 shows that during her visit to London in 1966,
she tried to convince the Labour government to set
up a Royal Commission to handle corruption issuesin Hong Kong. The trip however was not successful
as many MPs at that time considered her demands‘radical’, as FCO 40/120 has shown. As Nigel Fisher,an MP in House of Commons described, Elliott
was seen by many as ‘a very irrational person ofsomewhat extreme views’.7 Despite the lack ofprogress, Elliott still ‘publish[ed] anything she
received’, especially accounts from ordinary citizens
who were suffering from corruption.8 She had a good
relationship with a lot of Hong Kong newspapers,such as The China Mail, the Hong Kong Standard, theSouth China Morning Post and the Star. And when

the Godber case happened, she petitioned Anthony
Royle and pointed out that Godber ‘has bought a lotof suffering to a lot of Chinese families, and should
not be allowed to use his privilege position as anEnglishman to get away with it’.9 Open letters werealso written to appeal for the public’s support.10
Hong Kong’s serious corruption also captured UK
politicians’ attention, as FCO 40/453 reveals. For
instance, MP James Johnson had been a prominent
figure in the anti-corruption campaign. As early
as 1967, he already argued that appointing a Royal
Commission of Enquiry was necessary.11 In 1973,
he even set up meetings with the officials in theForeign and Commonwealth Office to urge theBritish government to introduce more effective anticorruption measures in Hong Kong.12 In addition,some former police that were affected by corruption
also became increasingly vocal, supporting theanti-corruption movement. For example, AlanEllis, who was dismissed on the ground of his
temperamental unsuitability in 1963 became an anticorruption activist. Similar to Elliott and Johnson,
he supported the establishment of an externallyappointed Commission of Inquiry. As FCO 40/451
has demonstrated, he shared his own story andthe seriousness of corruption in Hong Kong withnewspapers, such as The China Mail.13 He also wroteto MPs and officials in the British government, suchas Johnson and Enoch Powell, Anthony Royle andAndrew Stewart.14

Government’s Reponses
In the early 1960s, the colonial government wasalready aware of the extent of corruption in HongKong. In 1960, Governor Robert Brown Black
accepted the recommendation that an expert should
be appointed to review how the Anti-Corruption

4 FCO 40/453, Letter from Fung Tze Cheong, Acting President of the Hong Kong Federation of Student to Edward Heath, 17 August 1973.
5 FCO 40/453, ‘Godber Case’, telegram from Hugh Norman-Walker to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 24 August 1973; ‘Godber Case’, telegram
from Hugh Norman-Walker to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 24 August 1973.
6 FCO 40/453, Poster enclosed in telegram from M. J. Macoun to Andrew Stuart, Hong Kong and Indian Ocean Department, 23 August 1973.
7 FCO 40/120, Letter from Nigel Fisher (MP) to Malcolm Shepherd, Commonwealth Office, 22 April 1968.
8 FCO 40/554, Letter from A. C. Stuart to Mr. Rushford, 21 January 1974.
9 FCO 40/451, Letter from Elsie Elliott to Anthony Royle, 24 June 1973.
10 FCO 40/1022, Elsie Elliott, ‘Open Letter to the Hong Kong Government and Interested British MPs’, (undated) 1973.
11 FCO 40/453, ‘Call on Mr Amery by Mr James Johnson, MP, 3.00 pm’, 9 August 1973, p. 2.
12 FCO 40/453, Letter from R. B. Crowson to M. R. Guest, 8 August 1973.
13 FCO 40/451, ‘Corruption in Hong Kong, B.C.C.’, Letter from Alan Ellis to Anthony Royle, China Mail, 1 April 1973.
14 FCO 40/453, Letter from Alan Ellis to A. C. Stuart, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 20 August 1973.

Branch operated. However, the British government
was apathetic to such reforms at that time and theidea was dropped.15
Throughout the 1960s, the Chinese communities
and politicians such as Elliott continued pressing thecolonial government to separate the branch from thepolice force but it was not successful.

would ‘allay public suspicion that senior officials
helped Godber to leave the country’.20 The Governor
similarly acknowledged that it was necessary to‘reassure the public about the vigour and sincerity ofpolice action on corruption’.21

It was not until 1973 when Godber managed toescape, this revived demand was considered by
the government seriously. As Governor Murray
MacLehose observed in FCO 40/451, corruption
became ‘a subject of raucous criticisms of both [the]informed and uninformed’ in Hong Kong.16 As FCO
40/451 shows, ‘the man’s escape has caused great
disquiet’.17 And due to the extensive petitioning efforts
by the figures and organisations mentioned above,
the British government could feel the increased
pressure from local residents in the UK, pressing
for institutional reforms in Hong Kong. For example,
FCO 40/451, FCO 40/453 and FCO 40/457 all containcorrespondences from ‘complainants’ of diverse
backgrounds in the UK.18
These petitions and voices of discontent targeted theBritish and colonial governments, triggering new
discussions on whether creating an independent
Anti-Corruption Branch was needed. In June 1973,
with the agreement of the Executive Council, a oneman Commission of Inquiry to investigate corruption
and the escape of Godber was set up, led by Justice
Alastair Blair-Kerr. This move was welcomed by thepublic. Understanding that the investigation wasof ‘considerable public interest’, the government
believed that it was ‘in a position to publish it [thereport]’.19 As FCO 40/452 indicated, the Foreign andCommonwealth Office also agreed that increased
administrative transparency in the investigation

Letter of petition from Hong Kong Federation of Students to Prime Minister
Edward Heath on the extradition of Godber, 17 August 1973 (FCO 40/453/35).

Apart from the investigation of Godber’s case, boththe British and colonial governments were awareof the ‘good deal of pressure building for an UK
appointed enquiry’.22 However, according to reports

15 Mok, Covert Colonialism, p. 101.
16 FCO 40/451, ‘Escape of Chief Superintendent Godber’, telegram from Murray MacLehose to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 13 June 1973.
17 FCO 40/451, ‘Escape of Chief Superintendent Godber’, telegram from Murray MacLehose to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 13 June 1973.
18 FCO 40/451, Letter from ‘Complainants’ to Minister of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, 24 June 1973; FCO 40/453, Letter from T. P. Carter to Alex
Douglas-Home, 31 July 1973; FCO 40/457, Letter from Robert Moore (Department of Sociology, University of Aberdeen) to the editor of The Guardian, 24November 1973.
19 FCO 40/453, ‘Second Blair-Kerr Report on Corruption’, telegram from Murray MacLehose to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 27September 1973.
20 FCO 40/452, ‘Parliamentary Question on the Godber Case’, telegram from Murray MacLehose to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 19 July 1973.
21 FCO 40/452, ‘Parliamentary Question on the Godber Case’, telegram from Murray MacLehose to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 19 July 1973.
22 FCO 40/453, ‘Alleged Corruption in Hong Kong Police’, telegram from M. J. Macoun to R. B. Crowson, Hong Kong and Indian Ocean Department, 8August 1973.

generated by Town Talk, it was anticipated that theformation of an external enquiry would be ‘a major
blow to Hong Kong’s amour propre’. And that could
also be seen as the British government’s lack ofconfidence in the colonial state’s ability to settle
its own affairs. MacLehose was therefore ‘totally
opposed to an outside enquiry’ and the idea was
dropped in August 1973.23 Taking public opinion into
consideration, MacLehose instead supported theidea of setting up an independent branch in Hong
Kong locally.24
Driven by changing popular sentiments, the ICAC
was set up in February 1974. It was designed to bea ‘civilian organisation’ with little police elements.25
It consisted of three departments: the Corruption
Prevention Department, the Operations Department
and the Community Relations Department. TheCommission was headed by Jack Cater. John
Prendergast, the former Director of the Special
Branch, became the Director of Operations. To ensure
efficient operation, the Commissioner now possessedmore power compared to any of his predecessors;
he was only responsible to the Governor. In addition,
new advisory bodies were set up within the ICAC in
response to public opinions, in which members of
the public were represented.26 This new institutional
reform was generally welcomed by the public.27
Although the British government refused to amend
the Fugitive Offenders Act to extradite Godber, Ernest
Hunt, another corrupt police superintendent, wasable to provide evidence as a witness for Godber’scase, as FCO 40/457 suggests.28 Godber’s returnwas important in restoring public confidence in thecolonial state.

ICAC’s Impacts on Local Political Culture
The ICAC had enormous impacts on Hong Kong’s
political culture. Before this institutional change, thepublic was reluctant to report cases of corruption
for fear that there would be official retaliations. Incases where they made complaints, they usuallywrote to newspapers anonymously, indicating politicalconservatism.29 However, with the establishment of
the Independent Commission, the public felt thatthe government was now prepared to face up to its
shortcomings and held a sincere attitude towards
curbing corruption.30 Although the amnesty granted tothe police force in 1977 inevitably affect ICAC’s moraleand public confidence, the number of case reports
received by the ICAC remained stable, as the Table 1below (FCO 40/1023) has shown. In a MOOD opinion
polling exercise conducted by the City District Officers
in 1980, it was confirmed that the institutional change
did restore people’s confidence in the colonial regime
and was ‘generally successful’, with the private sector
being an exception.31 The report also showed there
was a gradual change in public attitudes: people
showed ‘a readiness’ to report corruption, with theyounger generation in particular, keen on joining theICAC. This suggests that the anti-corruption reforms
successfully increased people’s political engagement
and reduced their fear towards officialdom.

23 FCO 40/453, ‘Mr Royle’s Talk with Sir Murray MacLehose’, telegram from M. R. J Guest to R. B. Crowson, 19 August 1973; FCO 40/453, Letter to M. R.
Guest from R. B. Crowson, 9 August 1973.
24 FCO 40/455, ‘Parliamentary Question’, telegram from Murray MacLehose to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 15 October 1973.
25 FCO 40/558, ‘Staffing of the ICAC’, letter from J. Cater to A. C. Stuart, 26 February 1974, p. 1.
26 FCO 40/558, Government Information Services, ‘New Council to Set Up to Advise on Ways to Fight Graft: Public Widely Represented on New
Committees’, 30 January 1974.
27 Mok, Covert Colonialism, p. 104.
28 FCO 40/457, ‘Note of a Meeting held at the Home Office on 27 November 1973 to Discuss the Implications of the Double Criminality Rule in theFugitive Offenders Act 1957, in Relation to Offences Committed in Hong Kong’.
29 Mok, Covert Colonialism, p. 108.
30 Ibid.
31 HKRS 471-3-2, Home Affairs Department, ‘Public Impressions of the Independent Commission Against Corruption’, MOOD, 4 March 1980, p. 5.

Table 1. Number of Reports Received by ICAC
Reports received

Jan-Jun 1976

Jan-Jun 1977

Jan-Jun 1978

For ICAC consideration (total)

1367 (38.5%)

901 (29.8%)575 (21.9%)(monthly average)

227.8

150.2

95.8

Referred to government/departments/publicbodies/others (total)

2185 (61.5%)2125 (70.2%)2054 (78.1%)(monthly average)

364

354

312.3

Source: FCO 40/1023, ‘Comparative Statistics for the First Six Months of the Years: 1976, 1977, 1978’, p. 1.

Conclusion
As these FCO 40 files have shown, there had been voices in Hong Kong, advocating the formation of an
independent anti-corruption branch since the 1960s. However, the ICAC was not created until 1974, due largely
to the combined efforts of newspapers, student organisations and individual campaigners, all spurred by Peter
Godber’s escape from Hong Kong. Godber’s case showed the seriousness of corruption in Hong Kong and led
to changing public opinion in both Hong Kong and the UK, exerting pressures on both the British and colonial
governments to introduce changes. And the ICAC was regarded as one of the most important institutional
reforms in the colonial era, not only because it helped to eradicate corruption, but it also transformed HongKong’s political culture.