<轉載自2015年1月28日 明報 社評>
前任特首曾蔭權任內被指涉嫌收受利益及受賄，廉政公署調查接近3年，當局仍未決定怎樣處理；刑事檢控專員楊家雄在立法會答覆議員查詢時，引述前任專員薛偉成說過的「very
soon（很快）」來回應。憑此片言隻語，若說當局就「曾案」將有什麼決定，都屬猜測。不過，可以肯定一點，就是曾蔭權的案件並非過去式，而是進行式，案件保持在公的目光之下，當局總要交代有什麼決定、怎樣處理。
香港廉潔備受質疑 更要堅守公正法治
一年多前，薛偉成離任刑事檢控專員時，回答記者提問曾蔭權案件的進展，當時他說調查很快（very soon）就會完成；現在楊家雄同樣以very soon回應議員提問，表面上難以確定案情是否將明朗化。不過，議員提問的大意「是否廉署已經完成調查，律政署正研究調查所得的證據，以決定是否作出檢控」，楊家雄就此回答very soon，這或許可以解讀為案情有了實質進展。
曾蔭權貴為特首，任內被指涉嫌收受利益及受賄，當然備受關注。案件延宕快3年，從一開始，以他的身分和香港特別行政區的一些特定情況，法治以外的因素會否影響案件的調查和處理決定，一直引發猜測，揮之不去。此案的發展，當局最終若決定檢控曾蔭權，則交由司法程序處理，大家等待公正裁決，猜測自會戛然而止；若當局基於包括證據等種種原因，決定不檢控曾蔭權，則當局應該、也有必要詳細解釋，以確切無誤的理由，讓公眾相信不檢控的決定並無法治以外的其他考慮。
近年發生例如前任政務司長許仕仁的貪腐案，令香港社會廉潔倒退，不單是公眾的感覺和認知，在國際社會的排名也反映出來。在公眾層面，廉署在去年1至11月共收到2190宗投訴，較2013年2452宗跌逾一成，這是繼之前一年大幅下跌33%之後的再次下滑；下跌情並非某一類別減少，而是各類投訴，包括對政府部門、對公共機構與私營機構等的全面報跌。貪污投訴由2012年的3932宗，兩年內下跌到去年11月的2190宗，累積跌幅接近50%，甚為驚人。在國際社會層面，去年12月初公布的國際反貪腐組織「透明國際」（Transparency International）2014年清廉印象指數，香港在全球175個國家和地區中排名第17，較2013年的第15下跌兩位。這是排名第三年下跌，亦是自1997年以來的17年新低，得分亦連續兩年滑落。
公投訴銳減，並非因為本港廉潔程度提高，或當局有大動作使人相信廉潔度出現戲劇化好轉，而是市民未恢復對廉署的信心和信任。同樣地，國際社會評定香港社會廉潔程度倒退，不單是「透明國際」的調查，也在一些城市競爭力排名，香港拾級而下的事實反映出來。香港廉潔程度備受質疑，始於曾蔭權和前任廉政專員湯顯明涉嫌不當情事之後；廉署形象沉落，能否恢復公眾對廉政的信心，重新贏取國際社會高度評價香港的廉潔度，就看當局如何處理這兩宗事件。
防特首以權謀私 須納防賄例規管
不過，即使如此，有一點值得注意，就是當局對曾蔭權和湯顯明的處理，切勿有「為辦案而辦案」的想法，因為並非只有檢控才突顯對廉潔和廉政的堅持，而是要做到大公無私、毋枉毋縱、公開透明，讓公和國際社會看得到香港堅持和堅守法治原則，彰顯公義。各方要認識到：當局對曾蔭權和湯顯明兩宗案件的處理，事涉重建公眾對廉潔和法治的信心，重塑香港在國際社會的形象，十分重要。
當年，曾蔭權曾經委請終審法院前首席法官李國能檢討防止及處理潛在利益衝突；2012年5月李國能發表的獨立檢討委員會報告，指出行政長官不受《防止賄賂條例》第3條規管，
「是根本缺陷，完全不恰當，行政長官不應該凌駕於規管政治委任官員和公務員的法律之上」，報告建議立法把行政長官納入該條例，由獨立機構監察行政長官收受利益。當時候任特首的梁振英表示會「認真考慮報告中各項建議，上任後盡快和嚴格地落實」，可是報告發表接近3年，仍然沒有改變。
較早時，官員在立法會答覆提問時表示，律政司及行政署正在跟進獨立檢討委員會的建議，包括研究把特首納入《防止賄賂條例》規管，是否涉及憲制問題，云云。特首和公務員同樣接受《防止賄賂條例》規管，應有法理依據，因為特首位高權重，若有謀私之心而無相應法例規管，現行機制難以制止。當局一旦落實建議，適當地規管特首，對公重建廉潔和廉政的信心，會有促進作用。
Donald Tsang case
WHEN he was Chief
Executive (CE), Donald Tsang was alleged to have accepted advantages and
bribes. It was nearly three years since the Independent Commission Against
Corruption began its probe into the case, but the authorities have yet to
decide what to do with it. In replying to lawmakers' questions in the
legislative chamber, Director of Public Prosecutions Keith Yeung said
"very soon" as Kevin Zervos (his predecessor) had done.
It of course aroused much concern that, when he held the
exalted office of CE, Donald Tsang was alleged to have accepted advantages and
bribes. The case has dragged on for nearly three years. Because of his capacity
and certain circumstances in the Hong Kong SAR, there has been much conjecture
from the outset as to whether there are extra-legal factors influencing the
probe into or the handling of the case. Such conjecture has persisted. If the authorities decide that Donald Tsang should
be prosecuted, such conjecture will cease as legal proceedings will be taken
against him and people will await the court's just ruling. If they decide that
he should not be prosecuted on grounds of evidence or for other reasons, they
ought to give the public a detailed explanation - tell the public exactly why
they have come to that decision so that citizens will believe no extra-legal
factors have been taken into consideration.
There is one point worth notice. The authorities must not
deal with the Donald Tsang and Timothy Tong cases for the sake of dealing with
them. It is not true that they cannot show they uphold clean government and
fight against political corruption otherwise than by instituting prosecution.
What is important is to maintain high transparency and ensure that justice is
done and none is wrongly convicted or acquitted so that people in Hong Kong and
other parts of the world will know the principles of justice and the rule of
law are upheld in the SAR. It must be realised that the authorities' handling
of the Donald Tsang and Timothy Tong cases is of the utmost importance because
it has to do with the restoration of the public's confidence in clean
government and the rule of law and the reshaping of Hong Kong's image
in the world community.
Donald Tsang did commission Andrew Li (who had been Chief
Justice) to review how conflicts of interests could be prevented and should be
dealt with. In May 2012 the independent panel Andrew Li headed released its
report. It is said in the report that it is a fundamental flaw that Section 3
of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance does not apply to the CE and that is
totally improper because the CE should not be above any law that applies to all
political appointees and civil servants. It is recommended in the report that
the section be made applicable to the CE by legislation and that an independent
body should monitor the CE's accepting advantages. CE-elect Leung Chun-ying (as
he then was) then said he would seriously consider the recommendations listed
in the report and strictly implement them as soon as possible after he had
taken office. It is almost three years since the report came out, but things have
remained unchanged.
It ought to be a legal rule that the Prevention of
Bribery Ordinance should apply to the CE and all other civil servants alike.
The reason is that the CE has such power that, under the existing mechanism, he
cannot be prevented from feathering his own nest if he intends to do so. That
is why he should be bound by appropriate legal rules. It helps restore the
public's confidence in clean government and officials' incorruptibility for the
authorities to implement the independent panel's recommendations so that the CE
must abide by appropriate legal rules.
曾蔭權貴為特首，任內被指涉嫌收受利益及受賄，當然備受關注。案件延宕快3年，從一開始，以他的身分和香港特別行政區的一些特定情況，法治以外的因素會否影響案件的調查和處理決定，一直引發猜測，揮之不去。此案的發展，當局最終若決定檢控曾蔭權，則交由司法程序處理，大家等待公正裁決，猜測自會戛然而止；若當局基於包括證據等種種原因，決定不檢控曾蔭權，則當局應該、也有必要詳細解釋，以確切無誤的理由，讓公眾相信不檢控的決定並無法治以外的其他考慮。
有一點值得注意，就是當局對曾蔭權和湯顯明的處理，切勿有「為辦案而辦案」的想法，因為並非只有檢控才突顯對廉潔和廉政的堅持，而是要做到大公無私、毋枉毋縱、公開透明，讓公眾和國際社會看得到香港堅持和堅守法治原則，彰顯公義。各方要認識到：當局對曾蔭權和湯顯明兩宗案件的處理，事涉重建公眾對廉潔和法治的信心，重塑香港在國際社會的形象，十分重要。
當年，曾蔭權曾經委請終審法院前首席法官李國能檢討防止及處理潛在利益衝突；2012年5月李國能發表的獨立檢討委員會報告，指出行政長官不受《防止賄賂條例》第3條規管「是根本缺陷，完全不恰當，行政長官不應該凌駕於規管政治委任官員和公務員的法律之上」，報告建議立法把行政長官納入該條例，由獨立機構監察行政長官收受利益。當時候任特首的梁振英表示會「認真考慮報告中各項建議，上任後盡快和嚴格地落實」，可是報告發表接近3年，仍然沒有改變。
特首和公務員同樣接受《防止賄賂條例》規管，應有法理依據，因為特首位高權重，若有謀私之心而無相應法例規管，現行機制難以制止。當局一旦落實建議，適當地規管特首，對公眾重建廉潔和廉政的信心，會有促進作用。
沒有留言:
張貼留言