<轉載自2013年4月18日 明報 社評>
審計署第60號報告提到廉政公署的一些情况，使人忐忑不安，特別是廉政公署吃喝酬酢開支，超出開支上限，被揭露後卻有巧立名目掩飾不當之嫌，若事態反映廉署出現異化，則廉潔的核心價值豈非危如累卵？另外，近期廉署文件披露前任專員湯顯明在任期間，有關外訪和送禮的異常情况，事態仍未釐清，結合兩頓問題晚餐暴露出來的問題，使人驚覺廉署究竟發生了什麼事？值得關注。
審計署揭發晚餐超支 廉署解釋牽強難取信
審計署檢視2011年12月廉署兩個大型地區活動的開支，發現社區關係處在酬酢方面有超支問題。廉署就酬酢開支有規定，公務酬酢如事先得到批准，可以報銷並領回開支，此外，除非廉政專員另有批准，否則每人開支，包括食物、飲品及小費，上限為午餐350元，晚餐450元。
審計署發現有問題的兩個晚餐，第一個：12月6日的晚餐，廉政專員批准每人開支450元，當晚酒樓用膳開支為每人431元，不過，計及在另一地方享用甜品（每人共92元），實際開支為每人523元，還另外買了12支餐酒，超過廉政專員按《廉政公署常規》的批示。第二個：12月8日的晚餐，由一名廉署助理署長批准開支每人1045元，根據審計署的報告，未見這頓晚餐的開支事前得到廉政專員批准。
關於第一個晚餐，社區關係處回覆審計署，主要有3點：（1）晚餐開支是酬酢開支；（2）購買12瓶餐酒，為各式社交聚會場合備用，開支記入活動宣傳費用；（3）享用甜品為盡地主之宜的臨時社交活動，帶同參加者到甜品店品嘗中式甜品，甜品開支列為另一項酬酢開支。這個說法，實際上把一頓晚餐分為晚餐、購買餐酒、享用甜品3項開支，若這是合理安排，則《廉政公署常規》有關每人酬酢開支包括食物、飲品及小費的規定，豈非形同虛設？至於答覆的第2點，購備大量餐酒備用是否廉署一貫做法，若屬實，每次酬酢涉及喝酒就另計，則每人午餐350元、晚餐450元就是假開支，廉署是否自承弄虛作假？關於第3點，既然甜品是另一項酬酢開支，理應事先獲得批准，否則不能報銷，廉署若能提供事先批准的文件（或補辦的文件），才可以取信。
另外，據廉署答覆記者查詢，第一個晚餐有24人出席，其中11名是廉署人員（包括湯顯明專員），24人聚餐，購買12支餐酒，當然要有喝光的準備，顯然一副豪飲格局，不知道13名獲邀晚餐人士是否善飲，起碼廉署人員對自己的酒量，看來信心滿滿。
至於第二個晚餐大超支，社區關係處的回覆乾脆說晚餐由廉署作為東道主，宴請110名參加者，不過，這頓晚餐並非酬酢，而是「活動的一個項目」，開支記入活動的宣傳費用，根據廉政公署的授權表，由助理署長批准云云。若這個說法是廉署一貫運作，則廉署任何宴請，只要說性質乃宣傳活動，豈非開支都可以繞過《廉政公署常規》規管？若廉署的活動開支真的是這樣報銷和運作，則社區關係處的「宣傳費用」肯定是一個大黑洞，值得立法會議員嚴肅跟進。
廉署對一些案件，例如地區選舉，是否有人以吃喝玩樂方式變相買票，飲宴性質和由誰付鈔等，往往是偵查重點。審計署揭露廉署這兩頓晚餐，社區關係處的解釋未能解釋箇中異常情况，反而顯得有砌辭狡辯、企圖含混過關之嫌，若廉署要證明這兩頓晚餐合理、合法，要提出具體證據，而非靠一些似是而非的說法。
前任專員外訪送禮異常 廉署究竟發生了什麼事？
這兩頓晚餐之值得關注，不在超支花了多少公帑，而是使人看到廉署出現異化的迹象，若廉署禮崩樂壞，則港人珍惜堅持的核心價值，由誰來守護？特別是較早前廉署向立法會財會提交的文件顯示，前任專員湯顯明任內5年外訪34次，共有154日不在港，其中22次外訪均前往內地。外訪共耗近400萬港元，湯的個人開支76萬元，佔總開支19%。文件又披露湯任內花了22萬元，前後136次以公帑送禮予各地政府或官方機構，單在2010 / 11年度已送禮42次，各項禮物金額介乎90元至1.1萬元之間。對於這些異常情况，廉署的解釋含混不清，湯顯明則未回應，結合審計署揭發的兩頓問題晚餐，在湯任專員期間，廉署究竟發生了什麼事？值得關心和愛護香港的人留意。
廉署擁有近乎絕對權力，以方便它調查執法，推動肅貪倡廉；古今中外，從歷史到現實，絕對權力必然導致腐敗的事例，罄竹難書，廉署能否免於這個規律，潔身自愛？廉署運作一貫密密實實，行事隱密，外界很難知道它的情况和變化，這次審計署從兩頓晚餐的開支，揭開廉署內部運作小小一角。鑑於事態涉及廉署是否廉潔奉公，以現今體制，只能寄望立法會議員運用權力，盡量了解發生了什麼事，使廉署知道它在公權力監察之下，若有失當要盡早端正，使港人珍而重之的優勢和核心價值——廉潔，不至於被污染得面目全非。
Editorial
ICAC Still the Defender of Our Core Values?
ICAC Still the Defender of Our Core Values?
THE DIRECTOR OF AUDIT'S REPORT No 60 has revealed some alarming facts about the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), and one cannot but ask: What has happened to the ICAC?
In examining the expenses for two major community events organised by the ICAC in December 2011, the Audit Commission discovered problems of overspending. The ICAC has Commission Standing Orders governing entertainment expenses. They stipulate that an officer may be reimbursed for official entertainment expenses approved in advance. And, unless otherwise approved by the ICAC Commissioner, the expenses per head, inclusive of the costs of food and beverages as well as tips, are subject to a ceiling of HK$350 for lunch and HK$450 for dinner.
Of the two dinners found to be out of order, the first one was held on December 6, for which the ICAC Commissioner approved a budget of HK$450 per head. While the actual cost of the dinner at the Chinese restaurant concerned was HK$431 per head, the diners had dessert at another shop and paid an extra HK$92 per head, bringing the actual expenses per head to HK$523. In addition, they bought 12 bottles of table wine. The total expenses exceeded the amount prescribed by the Commission Standing Orders. The second dinner was held on December 8, the cost of which was approved by an Assistant Director and amounted to HK$1,045 per head. As far as can be seen in the Report, the expenses were not approved by the ICAC Commissioner.
With respect to the first dinner, the ICAC's Community Relations Department (CRD) gave the Audit Commission an explanation consisting of three main points. First, the cost of the dinner was an entertainment expense. Second, the cost of the 12 bottles of wine was charged to the publicity account for the event. Third, going for dessert was an impromptu social activity showing hospitality, the cost of which was treated as a separate entertainment expense. This explanation in effect means making separate reimbursement claims by splitting one single dinner into three parts: the dinner itself, wine, and dessert. If such an arrangement were reasonable and just, would it not be better for the Commission Standing Orders not to stipulate that the entertainment expenses per head should include the costs of food and beverages and tips?
As for the second dinner, which involved expenses far above the prescribed limit, the CRD's answer was simply that it was hosted by the ICAC as a component activity of an event, and the cost was charged to the publicity account. If this is the ICAC's established practice, does it not mean that the Commission can easily circumvent its Standing Orders and justify all its entertainment expenses by saying they are for publicity purposes? The Legislative Council should follow this up seriously.
According to papers the ICAC presented to the Legislative Council some time ago, Timothy Tong Hin-ming, its former commissioner, went on 34 duty visits outside Hong Kong over his five-year tenure. The visits cost almost HK$4 million, of which 19 percent, or HK$760,000, was for Tong's personal expenses. The papers also reveal that, in those five years, Tong 136 times made use of taxpayers' money, totalling almost HK$220,000, and purchased gifts for the governments or government departments he visited, the prices of the gifts ranging from HK$90 to HK$11,000. The ICAC has given no clear explanation for these unusual things. We cannot help asking what actually happened within the ICAC during Tong's term of office. This is a matter of concern for those who really love and care for Hong Kong.
明報社評 2013.04.18﹕廉署若禮崩樂壞 誰來守護廉潔核心價值
審計署檢視2011年12月廉署兩個大型地區活動的開支，發現社區關係處在酬酢方面有超支問題。廉署就酬酢開支有規定，公務酬酢如事先得到批准，可以報銷並領回開支，此外，除非廉政專員另有批准，否則每人開支，包括食物、飲品及小費，上限為午餐350元，晚餐450元。
審計署發現有問題的兩個晚餐，第一個：12月6日的晚餐，廉政專員批准每人開支450元，當晚酒樓用膳開支為每人431元，不過，計及在另一地方享用甜品（每人共92元），實際開支為每人523元，還另外買了12支餐酒，超過廉政專員按《廉政公署常規》的批示。第二個：12月8日的晚餐，由一名廉署助理署長批准開支每人1045元，根據審計署的報告，未見這頓晚餐的開支事前得到廉政專員批准。
關於第一個晚餐，社區關係處回覆審計署，主要有3點：（1）晚餐開支是酬酢開支；（2）購買12瓶餐酒，開支記入活動宣傳費用；（3）享用甜品為盡地主之誼的臨時社交活動，甜品開支列為另一項酬酢開支。這個說法，實際上把一頓晚餐分為晚餐、購買餐酒、享用甜品3項開支，若這是合理安排，則《廉政公署常規》有關每人酬酢開支包括食物、飲品及小費的規定，豈非形同虛設？
至於第二個晚餐大超支，社區關係處的回覆乾脆說晚餐由廉署作為東道主，是「活動的一個項目」，開支記入活動的宣傳費用。若這個說法是廉署一貫運作，則廉署任何宴請，只要說性質乃宣傳活動，豈非開支都可以繞過《廉政公署常規》規管？值得立法會議員嚴肅跟進。
較早前廉署向立法會財會提交的文件顯示，前任專員湯顯明任內5年外訪34次。外訪共耗近400萬港元，湯的個人開支76萬元，佔總開支19%。文件又披露湯任內花了22萬元，前後136次以公帑送禮予各地政府或官方機構，各項禮物金額介乎90元至1.1萬元之間。對於這些異常情况，廉署的解釋含混不清，在湯任專員期間，廉署究竟發生了什麼事？值得關心和愛護香港的人留意。
沒有留言:
張貼留言