Love or hate Donald Trump, you've got to give him credit for being a hit on the small screen. Both of his TV shows - The Apprentice and The Celebrity Apprentice - are ratings gold. If you watch either of these you know that Trump's catchphrase is the tersely uttered "You're fired!" And while that's very entertaining when Trump says those words in front of the TV, firing employees in public is not exactly common practice.

In fact, the catchphrase finally backfired on the The Donald. After NBC - the network hosting The Apprentice - decided not to renew the franchise for a 15th season and ended its business relationship with Trump because of his derogatory statements regarding immigrants, the phrase "You're fired" superimposed on Trump's image has spread all over the internet - an example of what are known as internet memes.

What is okay for Trump to say on TV is certainly not okay in your ordinary office, but people such as Democratic Party lawmaker Albert Ho Chun-yan seem to be oblivious to Human Resources 101.

In a matter-of-fact statement released on Thursday night, the commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), Simon Peh Yun-lu, announced that Rebecca Li Bo-lan, the acting head of the commission's Operations Department, was being replaced by Ricky Yau Shu-chun with effect from July 18.

The dissidents have an issue with the fact that in the statement Peh offered no explanation for Li's departure, simply stating that she "will proceed on final leave" on the same day as Yau assumes his new role.

They seem to believe that a public body's personnel decisions should also be public. Ho, for example, called on the ICAC to fully explain the replacement and Li's departure, saying it should not treat itself as a private company.

I am not aware of any such precedents though. What a strange idea if Ho really believes in what he is saying! In a hiring situation, for example, are we supposed to expect public bodies to detail the strength and weakness of all contenders and then discuss how the final decision was made?

There is also no point second-guessing why Li left the ICAC. As long as Li accepts the outcome and is not expressing any grievances, we should respect her decision.

Ho was correct on one point though. The ICAC should not treat itself as a private company. It is a special statutory body empowered by law to conduct investigations in accordance with comprehensive procedures. According to the law, every complaint is treated in the strictest confidence.

Contrary to Ho's belief, however, the ICAC's special status means that it does not always have to make everything public, especially when ongoing investigations are involved.

Therefore, it is strange to see Ho publicly releasing alleged details of the ongoing investigation surrounding the Australian firm UGL. Ho claimed that "according to multiple ICAC sources" the investigators had tried repeatedly in vain in the past year to obtain evidence from the Executive Council secretariat. We wonder who these sources are, and to what extent they have already committed a criminal offense together with Ho.

The dissidents like to use the ongoing UGL investigation as a weapon to undermine the ICAC's credibility. This shows a lack of respect for established procedures - the foundation of Hong Kong's rule of law. At the end of an ICAC investigation, if there is insufficient evidence for a prosecution, the case will be tabled before the Operations Review Committee, which is the sole authority to terminate an investigation. The Operations Review Committee is constituted by a range of people, from politicians from different camps to senior legal practitioners and business leaders. There is no reason to doubt their impartiality.

At the end of the day, while Rebecca Li had made a remarkable contribution to the fight against corruption in the past, there are many legitimate reasons why she may want to leave or why the ICAC no longer requires her service. It is common sense that these matters are best kept private.

If there really is something improper in the process, Li can always resort to our legal system, such as the Employment Ordinance or the anti-discrimination ordinances. This is the rule of law; an unsubstantiated allegation about political pressure is not.

(HK Edition 07/12/2016 page10)