立法會帳目委員會發表湯顯明在任廉政專員期間，廉署在酬酢、餽贈、外訪開支等方面處理不當及違規的聆訊報告，首次用上「痛斥」字眼，又多次用「譴責」、「震驚」、「難辭其咎」、「強烈不滿」及「不可接受」等強烈言詞，批評湯顯明和廉署社區關係處，又說湯顯明領導下的廉署損香港作為全球其中一個最廉潔的地方及廉署作為防貪先驅的聲譽，顯示帳委會對廉署腐敗的痛心疾首。較早前獨立調查委員會的報告和帳委會的報告，都確切說明湯顯明的違規不當行徑，是得到廉署人士協助的結果，無論就此事開展的刑事調查有什麼結果，廉署都必須徹底清除隱伏在內部的腐敗因素，市民才會相信廉署仍然是捍衛廉潔核心價值的重鎮。
帳委會猛批湯顯明 用字強烈極其罕見
帳委會對湯顯明的批評，遣詞用字劍及履及，強烈程度極其罕見。這個或許是湯顯明違規不當事實清楚，而且情節荒誕之處，使人憤怒（例如湯顯明批核的牛腩魚蛋、圍巾和照相機，竟被界定為「全署」禮物）；另外，相信與港人珍惜廉潔核心價值有關，而廉署的崩壞，對此構成正面衝擊。所以，這個報告不僅是帳委會對事態的結論，也反映了港人的集體意志。
湯顯明對帳委會的批評，透過律師發表聲明反駁，就分單買酒、茅台奉客、餽贈禮物、外訪觀光安排等都不承認有錯；在聲明中，他還向帳委會「叫陣」，要求精確說明違規項目，「是如何違了哪些規」，可謂厚顏無恥，從帳委會的角度，整份報告就是「違規不當大全」，若湯顯明要求的是經得起法律檢驗的精確「罪名」，那麼只能留待刑事調查處理了。不過，湯顯明安排女友和友人出席以公帑支付的酬酢活動，究竟屬什麼性質和目的？若他能說明理據和合規所在，則市民大概知道湯顯明要求的「精確」，究何所指。
關於廉署在湯顯明任專員期間，在酬酢、餽贈、外訪事宜的是非對錯，在社會上已有普遍認知和共識，若湯顯明的所作所為符合公期望，廉署管理和運作理當如此，則香港的肅貪倡廉可以成為許多國家及地區的楷模？肯定不可能。所以，在道德上，可以肯定地說，湯顯明5年專員任內，已經損害了廉署的聲譽，也損害了市民對廉潔社會的信心；至於在法律上的判斷，只能留待刑事調查的後續發展。
湯顯明令廉署蒙羞，事態反映一名部門首長若有個人議程，則一些違規不當情事，在部門之內不但無人可以阻止，而存心倖進之士，還可能藉此逢迎，與首長結成利益共同體，使部門紀綱結構性地敗壞。帳委會的報告指出，「湯顯明先生在酬酢、餽贈及離港外訪方面的行為，如非有若干廉署人員協助及默許，是沒有可能發生的」。報告並無指出哪些廉署人員協助湯顯明違規不當，但是從報告鋪陳的表述，矛頭指向社區關係處。
社關處在整件事的角色和作用，分為兩個階段，一個是湯顯明在任專員之時，一個是湯顯明任滿離職、由白韞六接任專員之後。
帳委會的報告提出大量數據事實，指出社關處以分單方式處理酬酢開支，是湯顯明得以表面上不超支而豪飲；行政總部推出新表格569，以規管酬酢開支包括飲品和小費，但是社關用了一年半之後停用，另外，廉署修訂《常規》，對酬酢開支「連買酒費用」作出明確規定，但是社關處置諸不理。可以說，社關處在湯顯明任專員期間宛如獨立王國，可以凌駕廉署的規章制度；至於湯顯明的不當外訪，亦是由社關處安排。總之，從已知情而言，湯顯明若沒有社關處協助，就無從藉公務酬酢豪飲茅台和藉公務外訪而旅遊，因此整件事的違規不當責任，若說社關處只是奉命而行，顯然未全面和沒有準確反映真象。
湯顯明離任之後，違規不當事情逐漸曝光，當時白韞六剛接任，理應不知道事態真相，回應外界查詢，應該並非由他主導。帳委會要求廉署提供送禮的資料，先後出現總值約22萬元、72萬元與130萬元3個數字，為何如此？事後弄出湯顯明送禮、向一般市民送禮、部門送禮等名目，難以使人信服；至於一度出現的「食品不算禮物」，究竟是誰的決定，至今仍然是一個謎。所以，廉署送禮的資料披露，若說不涉及隱瞞，在種種事態面前，難以置信。
廉署崩壞淪喪 穆斐文有責任
另外，湯顯明任內，社關處每年都獲增加撥款，而用於接待、外訪的開支大幅增加，應該推行的倡廉教育和接觸機構數目及市民人數卻呈現下降趨勢，帳委會報告對此表示震驚和強烈不滿，認為不可接受。所以，社關處與湯顯明有「共同違規」實質，又未善盡肅貪倡廉職責，則其主事人——穆斐文處長是否適任的問題就浮現出來。
帳委會的報告，並未點名譴責穆斐文，白韞六在回應記者答問時，對社關處也多所維護。不知道帳委會與白韞六善待穆斐文是基於什麼考慮，不過，以穆斐文在整件事的角色，她在廉署紀綱淪喪、禮崩樂壞的異化中，肯定起重要作用，她涉及一些事態的性質與法律規定是否有扞格，尚待釐清，以她這樣的角色和身分在廉署留居高位，廉署形象仍然蒙上陰影，難以恢復市民對它肅貪倡廉的信心和信任。Editorial
Corrupt elements in the ICAC
THE LEGISLATIVE
COUNCIL Public Accounts Committee has released an inquiry report into the
Independent Commission Against Corruption's (ICAC's) non-compliance with
regulations governing official entertainment, gift, and duty visit expenses
during Timothy Tong Hin-ming's tenure as commissioner. In criticising Tong and
the ICAC's Community Relations Department, the committee has used, for the
first time in its history, the Chinese equivalent of the word
"deplore" in addition to other stern words that include "condemn",
"shocked", "inexcusable", "grave dismay", and
"unacceptable". It says the commission under Tong has tarnished
not only its own reputation as a graft-buster, but also Hong Kong's reputation
as one of the world's least corrupt places. The ICAC must cleanse itself
of all corrupt elements if it is to convince the public that it still stands as
an important bulwark against corruption.
In answer to the committee's criticism, Tong has
issued a statement through his lawyers declaring that there was nothing
irregular in his splitting bills to claim reimbursements for liquor purchases,
entertaining guests with maotai, giving away gifts, and going sightseeing
during duty visits. He even challenges the committee to point out clearly which
regulations he is said to have broken. He is utterly shameless.
Public opinion is very clear as regards the rights
and wrongs of the ICAC's official entertainment, gift offerings, and duty visit
arrangements during Tong's tenure. Morally, it can be said without a shadow of
a doubt that Tong's five-year tenure has damaged the ICAC's reputation and
undermined public confidence in Hong Kong being a corruption-free society. A
legal judgment cannot be made at present since criminal investigations are
still under way.
The inquiry report points out that, with respect to
his official entertainment, gift offerings, and duty visit arrangements outside
Hong Kong, Tong could not have done what he did without the assistance and
connivance of some ICAC staff. The report does not identify the ICAC staff who
helped Tong violate regulations. However, the details set out point directly to
the Community Relations Department.
There is in the report a mass of data and facts
which show that, during Tong's tenure, the Community Relations Department
virtually operated like an independent kingdom that transcended the ICAC's
established regulations and practices. Judging by what has been published, Tong
could not have drunk to his fill of maotai in the name of official
entertainment, or gone sightseeing in the name of duty trips without the help
of the Community Relations Department. It clearly does not give a full or
accurate picture to say that the department was just carrying out orders.
There can be no denying that the Community
Relations Department and Tong were close partners in violating the ICAC's
regulations, and they both failed to properly perform their anti-corruption
duties. This naturally gives rise to one question. Is the department director,
Julie Mu Fee-man, the right person for her post?
The inquiry report does not condemn Mu by name, and
in answering questions from the press Simon Peh Yun-lu went out of his way to
defend the Community Relations Department. We do not know what considerations
the Public Accounts Committee and Peh may have in treating Mu so kindly. What
is certain is that, with Mu remaining in high office, the ICAC can hardly
expect to restore public confidence in its anti-corruption work.
立法會帳目委員會發表湯顯明在任廉政專員期間，廉署在酬酢、餽贈、外訪開支等方面處理不當及違規的聆訊報告，首次用上「痛斥」字眼，又多次用「譴責」、「震驚」、「難辭其咎」、「強烈不滿」及「不可接受」等強烈言詞，批評湯顯明和廉署社區關係處，又說湯顯明領導下的廉署損香港作為全球其中一個最廉潔的地方及廉署作為防貪先驅的聲譽。廉署必須徹底清除隱伏在內部的腐敗因素，市民才會相信廉署仍然是捍衛廉潔核心價值的重鎮。
湯顯明對帳委會的批評，透過律師發表聲明反駁，就分單買酒、茅台奉客、餽贈禮物、外訪觀光安排等都不承認有錯；在聲明中，他還向帳委會「叫陣」，要求精確說明違規項目，「是如何違了哪些規」，可謂厚顏無恥。
關於廉署在湯顯明任專員期間，在酬酢、餽贈、外訪事宜的是非對錯，在社會上已有普遍認知和共識。在道德上，可以肯定地說，湯顯明5年專員任內，已經損害了廉署的聲譽，也損害了市民對廉潔社會的信心；至於在法律上的判斷，只能留待刑事調查的後續發展。
帳委會的報告指出，「湯顯明先生在酬酢、餽贈及離港外訪方面的行為，如非有若干廉署人員協助及默許，是沒有可能發生的」。報告並無指出哪些廉署人員協助湯顯明違規不當，但是從報告鋪陳的表述，矛頭指向社區關係處。
帳委會的報告提出大量數據事實，指出社關處在湯顯明任專員期間宛如獨立王國，可以凌駕廉署的規章制度；從已知情而言，湯顯明若沒有社關處協助，就無從藉公務酬酢豪飲茅台和藉公務外訪而旅遊，若說社關處只是奉命而行，顯然未全面和沒有準確反映真象。
社關處與湯顯明有「共同違規」實質，又未善盡肅貪倡廉職責，則其主事人——穆斐文處長是否適任的問題就浮現出來。
帳委會的報告，並未點名譴責穆斐文，白韞六在回應記者答問時，對社關處也多所維護。不知道帳委會與白韞六善待穆斐文是基於什麼考慮，不過，以她這樣的角色和身分在廉署留居高位，廉署難以恢復市民對它肅貪倡廉的信心和信任。
沒有留言:
張貼留言