刑事調查湯顯明 廉署應盡快交代

<轉載自2014年7月11日 明報 社評>

立法會調查湯顯明事件的專責委員會發表報告（下稱專委會報告），再一次確定湯顯明在廉政專員任內的不當行為，報告指湯顯明破壞廉署形象，令廉署聲譽蒙污。湯顯明事件的是非黑白十分清楚，只是迄今未見廉署採取實質舉措告別過去，重塑形象、洗刷污點，重建公眾對廉署守護廉潔核心價值的信心。廉署對湯顯明開展刑事調查，已經超過一年，廉署應盡快交代，讓公眾判斷廉署是否仍然是值得信賴的肅貪倡廉機構。

立會調查報告 高高舉起輕輕放下

關於湯顯明事件，先後有包括特首委任獨立檢討委員會報告、立法會帳目委員會報告、專委會報告。這3份報告，對湯顯明在廉政專員任內的不當情事，批評力度縱使不同，但是都確定湯顯明在公務酬酢、餽贈和外訪的處理安排，均有不當。不過，其中專委會的報告，由於5名泛民議員不滿報告「和稀泥、刻意淡化批評」，拒絕簽署，另行發表「另類報告」，從專委會報告對湯顯明的不當批評和欠缺評價，泛民議員的不滿，可以理解。

專委會報告對湯顯明的批評，予人有高高舉起、輕輕放下之感。報告對湯顯明的指摘，認為他「破壞廉署的形象，令廉署的聲譽蒙污」，按此定性，湯顯明的不當情事的性質，十分嚴重，是否涉及違規違法，還待釐清，但是專委會報告的表述，於超支宴請，只說「比例過高」；公務酬酢以烈酒款客，說「不恰當」；啤酒大賽或卡拉OK等，說「予公眾負面觀感」；送贈昂貴禮物，說「容易滋生貪腐風氣」，並形容湯顯明「欠缺警覺和應有謹慎態度」而已。湯顯明涉及的不當情事，輿論不乏有荒謬、荒唐之感，專委會的表述顯得輕描淡寫，與公眾的感受有顯著落差。

另外，既然說湯顯明破壞廉署形象並使聲譽蒙污，專委會理應有一個態度，表明對事態的評價，但是報告就此付諸闕如，只是對廉署因為進行刑事調查而拒絕提供資料「感到遺憾」。湯顯明的不當行為，對廉署構成實質負面影響，專委會卻無態度、無評價，情況有點奇怪，難以理解。專委會5名泛民發表的「另類報告」，對湯顯明「予以最強烈譴責」，以事態的性質和程度，份屬恰當。

專責委員會有13名成員，其中8名建制派議員，主導了報告的字眼，決定了批評湯顯明的力度，就數人頭的議會政治，建制派或許為「我說了算」而沾沾自喜，不過，損害廉潔核心價值在香港屬大是大非問題，而湯顯明的是非對錯那麼清楚，建制派的淡化操持放諸整體社會來檢視，他們對廉潔核心價值的堅持，相信公會心裏有數。

另外，專委會報告就一些事項未有交代。例如湯顯明被指以公帑搞飯局，宴請女友（原入境處助理處長陳詠梅）及富商朋友黃楚標；立法會帳委會的報告，不點名批評協助湯顯明外訪安排及處理飲宴分單的社關處長穆斐文等，報告都未有交代。湯顯明任內種種不當情事，明顯並非他的個人行為，必定有其他人配合，事態才會持續數年，而社關處的角色和作用顯而易見，因為有社關處配合，湯顯明的意志才得以落實貫徹。可以說，社關處是湯顯明任內廉署腐敗的一部分，當局若不把腐敗因子清除出廉政隊伍，除了廉署難以重拾公眾的信心和信任，內部會否繼續腐爛下去，也是未解之謎。

湯顯明對專委會報告的回應，認為「算是還了本人一個公道」，對於報告中「並無任何地方聲稱或顯示本人任內處理酬酢等事宜是與『貪』字有關，亦無涉及私人利益，或濫用權力等問題。在這方面，報告書還了本人一個清白」，云云。 湯顯明的回應，可視為對他全部指控的反擊，他的高調是否與報告的不痛不癢有關，可以有不同體會，不過，據專委會報告披露對湯顯明的多項指控，都因為廉署以進行刑事調查為由，拒絕提供資料，在這種情況下，因為缺乏證據未能推斷湯顯明是否失當。廉署對湯顯明的刑事調查仍在進行，不提供相關資料，從廉署的角度或許有必要，不過，客觀上形成窒礙專委會調查的效果。廉署是否變相「曲線」幫了湯顯明一把，值得思考。

事件一日未解決 廉署難重拾市民信任

廉署的刑事調查，使涉及對湯顯明不當的資料，變相封存，使得廉署以外，無人可以知道事態真相；而現在的刑事調查，是廉署自己人查自己人，特別是涉及與湯顯明不當行為的廉署中人，仍然在職，則廉署的調查會否公正，本來就是一個問號。廉署對湯顯明事件的刑事調查，已經超過一年，以廉署的密密實實作風，外界對調查進度一無所知，這件事，愈拖下去愈使人質疑箇中是否有不可告人考慮，廉署應該盡快向公眾交代，否則，廉署的形象會繼續受損害，聲譽繼續蒙污。湯顯明事件一日未解決，公眾和社會都不會淡忘，廉署也不會重拾市民的信心和信任。

Editorial
Report on Timothy Tong scandal

THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (Legco) select committee tasked with investigating the Timothy Tong scandal has published a report. It confirms that what Tong did when he was ICAC Commissioner was inappropriate, and that he has damaged the image and tarnished the reputation of the commission.

In respect of the Tong scandal, an Independent Review Committee, the Legco Public Accounts Committee and the Legco select committee have each published a report. Their criticisms of Tong's misconduct vary in severity, but they all assert that improper arrangements were made in relation to his entertainment, gift-making and duty visits.

The Legco select committee's report says Tong has "damaged the image and tarnished the reputation of the ICAC". Such a criticism points to improprieties of a very serious nature, and it remains to be clarified whether any irregularities and illegalities were involved. However, the report merely says that the percentage of over-budget meals hosted by Tong was "unduly high", that serving hard liquor at official entertainment functions was "inappropriate", that beer drinking contests and karaoke sessions (like those Tong organised) "may give a negative perception to ... the general public", and that bestowing expensive gifts (like those Tong gave) "can easily give rise to corrupt practices". The report merely says that Tong "lacked the prudence expected of him" as ICAC Commissioner. The mild descriptions in the report are clearly very much at variance with many Hong Kong people's perception, as they have found Tong's behaviour absurd and preposterous.

Furthermore, the select committee has failed to take a stance on the case, which it ought to have done as it says Tong has damaged the ICAC's image and brought it into disrepute. It only says it "regrets" that the ICAC refused to provide information on the grounds that a criminal investigation was under way. Tong's misconduct has adversely affected the ICAC. It is rather strange and incomprehensible that the select committee has not taken a stance or passed judgement on the matter.

The report fails to shed any light on several issues. For example, Tong is said to have provided a banquet with taxpayers' money for his girlfriend (former Assistant Director of Immigration) Helen Chan and his wealthy friend Wong Cho-bau. Furthermore, the Legco Accounts Committee has criticised in its report Director of Community Relations Julie Mu (without naming her) for helping Tong arrange his duty trips and splitting bills for his banquets. The select committee's report is silent on these two issues. It is obvious that Tong's misconduct involved not only himself. It would not have spanned several years if he had not been abetted by others. It is also obvious what role the Community Relations Department played. But for its support, Tong's will would not have been done. The department can be said to be one of the ICAC's corrupt components during Tong's tenure. Unless the ICAC rids itself of the seeds of corruption, it will have difficulty regaining the public's confidence and trust, and it will be a mystery whether it will continue to rot at its core.

刑事調查湯顯明 廉署應盡快交代

立法會調查湯顯明事件的專責委員會發表報告（下稱專委會報告），再一次確定湯顯明在廉政專員任內的不當行為，報告指湯顯明破壞廉署形象，令廉署聲譽蒙污。

關於湯顯明事件，先後有包括特首委任獨立檢討委員會報告、立法會帳目委員會報告、專委會報告。這3份報告，對湯顯明在廉政專員任內的不當情事，批評力度縱使不同，但是都確定湯顯明在公務酬酢、餽贈和外訪的處理安排，均有不當。

報告對湯顯明的指摘，認為他「破壞廉署的形象，令廉署的聲譽蒙污」，按此定性，湯顯明的不當情事的性質，十分嚴重，是否涉及違規違法，還待釐清，但是專委會報告的表述，於超支宴請，只說「比例過高」；公務酬酢以烈酒款客，說「不恰當」；啤酒大賽或卡拉OK等，說「予公眾負面觀感」；送贈昂貴禮物，說「容易滋生貪腐風氣」，並形容湯顯明「欠缺警覺和應有謹慎態度」而已。湯顯明涉及的不當情事，輿論不乏有荒謬、荒唐之感，專委會的表述顯得輕描淡寫，與公的感受有顯著落差。

另外，既然說湯顯明破壞廉署形象並使聲譽蒙污，專委會理應有一個態度，表明對事態的評價，但是報告就此付諸闕如，只是對廉署因為進行刑事調查而拒絕提供資料「感到遺憾」。湯顯明的不當行為，對廉署構成實質負面影響，專委會卻無態度、無評價，情況有點奇怪，難以理解。

另外，專委會報告就一些事項未有交代。例如湯顯明被指以公帑搞飯局，宴請女友（原入境處助理處長陳詠梅）及富商朋友黃楚標；立法會帳委會的報告，不點名批評協助湯顯明外訪安排及處理飲宴分單的社關處長穆斐文等，報告都未有交代。湯顯明任內種種不當情事，明顯並非他的個人行為，必定有其他人配合，事態才會持續數年，而社關處的角色和作用顯而易見，因為有社關處配合，湯顯明的意志才得以落實貫徹。可以說，社關處是湯顯明任內廉署腐敗的一部分，當局若不把腐敗因子清除出廉政隊伍，除了廉署難以重拾公的信心和信任，內部會否繼續腐爛下去，也是未解之謎。