湯顯明主政廉署5年期間，種種違規之處，廉政公署公務酬酢、餽贈及外訪規管制度和程序獨立檢討委員會（下稱檢委會）的報告，已經清楚臚列，而事態顯示，湯顯明是在廉署內部得到配合之下，才得以持續違規至離任，其中社區關係處起到重要作用。由於「共犯結構」並非僅見於單一個案，而是持續不斷地進行，所以，事態顯示腐化因子植入了廉署，是否已經成為廉署文化的一部分，外界無從判別，但是，若廉署不清理門戶，徹底把腐化因子和病毒掃出廉政隊伍，則廉署將難以重拾市民的信心和信任。
檢委會報告 提到社關處3違規
在湯顯明涉及的酬酢超支，社關處以「分單」報銷、或乾脆指一頓大超支的晚餐並非酬酢，而是該處「活動的一個項目」，開支記入宣傳費用，這種情，審計署的衡工量值報告已經揭發出來。不過，隨披露愈多，社關處的不當行徑暴露愈多，涉及的違規情節性質嚴重。檢委會報告有20處因為刑事調查而刪除，內容涉及什麼事和人，現在不知道，從已公布的內容顯示，社關處涉及的違規情最少有3處。
（1）2007年9月，社關處籌辦晚宴，由湯顯明款待一個內地官方訪問團，社關處按照湯的指示，安排「趕急採購」茅台待客。這頓晚宴，餐費加買酒費用，超過酬酢開支上限，其後社關處雖然請湯顯明在買酒收據上簽署，作為授權批准，不過，並無文件紀錄顯示社關處曾告知湯顯明晚宴開支總額超出上限，而超支的理據亦沒有記錄在案。
（2）2008年中，行政總部為了煞住酒水分單報銷的不正之風，推出廉署表格569號，給廉署人員申請批核酬酢開支時使用，表格訂明預算開支包括飲品和小費，只是半年之後，社關處不再使用這款表格。而社關處無論是否採用表格569，申請時都無把買酒費用計入酬酢開支。
到2009年7月，廉署修訂常規的「酬酢開支」，訂明人均酬酢開支應包括「食物、飲品和小費」，但是社關處在計算酬酢開支時，依然沒有計入買酒費用。
（3）湯顯明有兩次外訪，一次是2009年1月到北京─昆明─麗江，另一次是2010年5月到北京─成都─樂山。這兩次外訪，都由社關處統籌，其中麗江和樂山主要涉及觀光活動，而湯顯明就外訪向行政長官申請批准時，只提及訪問雲南及四川，並沒有提及行程包括麗江及樂山。
綜觀這3件事項，關於第1和第2件，嚴格而言，社關處可以說「有法不依」，未遵守廉署內部明文規定的要求。特別是行政總部推出新表格、廉署修訂常規明確規定酬酢開支的範圍，這兩個舉措，乃明令規範酬酢開支，社關處卻置諸不理，我行我素，而又可以通行無阻；出現這種情，社關處無視規定只是一個方面，廉署內部無人制止社關處胡作非為，才是事態關鍵；至於外訪行程之「瞞上」，表面看來社關處扮演了一定角色。
檢委會報告提到社關處的違規行徑，揭示湯顯明主政下廉署出現的腐敗現象，除了湯起到核心作用，若沒有社關處配合，湯顯明的意志不會得到體現和貫徹，所以，社關處有不可推卸責任。湯顯明已經離任，但是社關處誰應負責？誰應問責？若廉署不接受、不容忍腐敗，則與5年腐化有密切關係的社關處，可以當它沒有任何事情發生過？我們認為，這是現任廉政專員白韞六要回答的問題。
廉署腐敗因子 白韞六應該拔除
湯顯明違規不當被揭發之初，白韞六應對傳媒和立法會帳目委員會的質詢，一度因為資料片面不確而尷尬，其中給帳委會的禮物資料清單，總值只有約23萬元，傳媒進一步揭露之後，他在立法會更正為約72.4萬元，到檢委會報告指禮物總值約130萬元，廉署這種一而再自我否定，緣由為何，白韞六應該知之甚明；另外，「食品不當禮物」，是誰的決定？在輿論嘩然下，廉署要更正和成立39年以來首次道歉。如此種種，反映事發之初白韞六對整件事不知就裏，聽信廉署其他人提供的資料應對，碰了一鼻子灰。這個階段，白韞六的體會想必是寒天飲冰水，點滴在心頭。
當時，傳媒接連爆料，白韞六應接不暇之際，他公開承諾會秉公辦理。事發迄今半年，白韞六應該已經掌握整體情了，不過，他回應檢委會報告，僅強調奢華款待只屬個別人員的作風，絕大部分同事都無此風氣，並保證任期內不會出現奢華款待的事情，云云；從安內角度，這番話無可厚非，但是，檢委會報告明確指出了社關處的違規之處，就此，未見白韞六有什麼說法和交代，難道他認為報告提到社關處的做法正常合規，可以不理？白韞六與事態完全無關，他完全可以、也有責任整飭廉署歪風，拔除腐敗的因子，重建廉署形象，重拾市民對廉署捍衛廉潔核心價值的信心和信任。白韞六要善盡責任，切勿辜負公的期望。
Editorial
Rid the ICAC of its black sheep
Rid the ICAC of its black sheep
AN Independent Review Committee tasked with reviewing the
ICAC's mechanisms for regulating entertainment activities, gift-giving and
foreign visits has published a
report. It reveals that, during Timothy Tong Hin-ming's 5-year term of office,
he violated the ICAC's regulations on multiple counts. The report also brings
to light the scale of the ICAC's gift-giving under his leadership - $1.3
million, much more than what the ICAC acknowledged before.
As former head of the
ICAC, Timothy Tong cannot possibly shift the blame in this matter. However,
judging from what has become known, we believe that though Tong was at the
heart of the ICAC's corruption and degeneration, he must have had his
accomplices on the inside. In one case exposed by the Committee, the official
in charge of procurement split the bills to circumvent the $5,000 limit on
purchase. There were people who did the same in dealing with their overspending
on entertainment. All this shows that bill-splitting was a method some ICAC
officials used to conceal their irregularities, and that in all this not only
Timothy Tong but also other high-ranking ICAC officials were involved.
Furthermore, the report
discloses that the ICAC spent as much as $1.3 million on gifts during Tong's
term. This is a figure we haven't seen before. The documents the ICAC submitted
to the Legislative Council earlier gave a figure of just around $230,000. The
Commission was later found to have regarded food items like cookies not as
gifts, and for this it was severely criticised by the public. But even though
these items were subsequently taken into account, the figure came to just about
$280,000. Later Simon Peh Yun-lu, the incumbent ICAC Commissioner, told the
Legco Panel on Security that during the period the ICAC's spending on gifts and
souvenirs amounted to $724,000. And Peh divided Tong's gift expenditures into
two categories: those on gifts for officials, and those on gifts for
institutions and ordinary individuals. We don't know what the classification
implies, and the public is baffled. But some disclosures of the Committee's
report are even more difficult to grasp.
Gift-giving involves the
exchange of real interests.
At the worst it may breed crime. The gifts referred to in the report include five
beer mugs ($1,580 each), five commemorative pens ($2,170 each), and an
eagle-shaped sculpture ($4,730). Not only were they expensive, they went
unmentioned in the documents submitted to Legco and in ICAC officers' answers
to questions by lawmakers. It remains doubtful whether the ICAC has been giving
a full account of its gift-giving practice all along. We have reason to believe
that the matter has to do with a structured network of people in the
Commission, and they lie at the bottom of the ICAC's corruption and
degeneration. Unless they are exposed and removed from the ICAC, these viruses,
as it were, will continue to weaken the constitution of the ICAC, making it
hard for the ICAC to regain the public's confidence and trust in it as a
graft-buster.
Under the regulations
currently in force, overspending on entertainment can be approved at the
discretion of the ICAC Commissioner. The Committee suggests that in future the
Corruption Prevention Advisory Committee (CPAC) should be informed of such
cases. If such a mechanism is in place, we believe that the Commissioner will
think twice before he approves an overspending request. But we are convinced
that the government can even more effectively prevent the ICAC's corruption and
degeneration if it bolsters the functions of the CPAC by, for example, turning
it into a statutory body like the Independent Police Complaints Council.
檢討廉署酬酢、餽贈、外訪規管制度和程序獨立檢討委員會（下稱檢委會）的報告，揭示前任廉政專員湯顯明5年任內在酬酢、餽贈和外訪事宜上，有多項違規；另外，報告披露湯顯明任內廉署餽贈開支高達130萬元，遠高於廉署過去承認的金額總值。
湯顯明作為最高負責人，當然有不可推卸的責任，不過，從已知情況看來，廉署所顯露腐化異化現象，湯顯明只是核心，內部有人配合才成事。例如在一宗個案中，負責人員以「分單」採購方式，規避5000元上限的限制。酬酢超支，廉署有人以「分單」處理，檢委會揭出採購「分單」，反映「分單」操作，是廉署一些人用以掩飾違規不當的做法，除了涉及湯顯明，其他一些人肯定與此有關，而且職位應屬廉署高層人物。
此外，檢委會報告披露湯顯明任內，廉署送出禮物價值高達130萬元，這是一個新數字。過去，關於餽贈部分，廉署提交立法會的文件，只提及價值約23萬元，其後被揭發廉署把送出的曲奇餅等食物，不算作禮物，輿論抨擊之後，廉署將此等食物劃歸入禮物，而總價值也只是增至約28萬元。其後，現任廉政專員白韞六在立法會保安事務委員會會議上表示，湯顯明任內花費在禮物及紀念品總額為72.4萬元。白把湯顯明的送禮開支一分為二，分別是「湯送給官員」及「湯送給機構及一般人」。不知道白韞六的劃分有什麼玄機，公眾則被弄得不明所以，不過，委員會報告的披露，更有使人難以理解之處。
送禮涉及現實利益，從最壞處想，更是罪惡的溫。報告披露的「禮物例子」，其中啤酒杯（5隻各1580元）、紀念筆（5支各2170元）、鷹形雕刻擺設（1件值4730元）等，這些禮品不但貴價，而且過去提交給立法會的文件和答詢，都未提及。所以，從整個歷程而言，廉署是否已經悉數交代送禮情節，難免啟人疑竇。有理由相信箇中有組織結構關係，而性質涉及腐化與異化的深層底蘊，若不將之暴露出來，清除出廉政隊伍，則這些病毒會繼續侵蝕廉署的肌體，使廉署難以重拾公眾對它肅貪倡廉的信心和信任。
按現行規定，廉署酬酢超支，由專員酌情批准即可，委員會建議日後須匯報防貪諮委會，增加了這個機制，相信專員再批准超支，也會三思。不過，若強化防貪諮委會的職能，例如仿效監警會成為法定機構，對防範廉署腐化和異化，相信會更收效。
沒有留言:
張貼留言