<轉載自2017年11月8日 明報 社評>
前行政長官曾蔭權被控收受利益罪，兩度審訊均未能達成有效裁決，控方決定暫時不再要求重審。案件束諸高閣，有可能成為永恒懸案，曾蔭權再遭起訴機率相當低，惟涉嫌收受利益的惡名亦難以徹底洗脫，成為曾蔭權的永恒污點。曾蔭權形容折騰5年很疲累，然而身為特區政府之首，從一開始就應該律己以嚴，避免瓜田李下，「心力交瘁」乃自招，與人無尤。曾蔭權案前車可鑑，政府應盡快落實修訂《防止賄賂條例》，將收受利益罪行涵蓋範圍擴大至行政長官，勿再拖拖拉拉。
未符公眾合理期望 官司纏身咎由自取
2015年，曾蔭權遭廉署落案起訴，控以兩項公職人員行為失當罪，其後再被加控「行政長官接受利益罪」，今年初陪審團裁定兩項公職人員行為失當一罪成、一罪脫，至於收受利益罪則未能達至大比數有效裁決，需要重審，未料再來一次，結果仍然一樣。案情表面看似複雜，其實脈絡核心並不艱深。根據控方說法，曾蔭權身為行政長官，在審批雄濤數碼廣播牌照時，接受雄濤股東提供的豪宅裝修，價值300萬元，至於負責裝修設計的何周禮，隨後獲得曾蔭權推薦受勳。
整宗案件，充斥着大量「巧合」，諸如曾蔭權「租住」的深圳東海花園豪宅，業主偏偏是雄濤股東黃楚標；出入境紀錄顯示，曾蔭權與雄濤另一股東李國寶幾乎在同一時間歐遊，而在歐遊前大約兩星期，李國寶與曾太鮑笑薇又巧合地在半小時之內，在銀行分別提取和存入35萬元現金。李國寶聲言當時兒子即將在倫敦結婚，提款35萬元只為「封利市」，惟控方質疑，短時間內出現兩筆數目相同的大額提存耐人尋味，認為兩者必有關係。
雖然一系列的「巧合」，說到底只能算是環境證據，然而從常理心的角度去看，耐人尋味事件一宗接一宗，難免令人覺得事有蹊蹺。法官引導陪審團，指出不能忽略曾蔭權與雄濤3名股東黃楚標、李國寶及鄭經翰的密切關係，賄賂公職人員有時毋須明言要求為何，以特首身分接受裝修費本身即屬貪污，毋須與發牌決定有關，等等。法官其實已清晰點出關鍵，不過陪審團始終無法得出有效裁決。隨着控方申請將控罪交予法庭存檔，案件大有可能永遠成為懸案。
表面上，曾蔭權似乎可以鬆一口氣，然而涉嫌收受利益的控罪，其實並沒有真正消失，有可能成為曾蔭權餘生一個永遠無法卸下的包袱。法律證據無法證明有罪，不代表被告清白，公眾對高官操守有要求有期望，身為行政長官更應該以身作則，務求「比白紙更白」。曾蔭權將公眾對特首的合理期望拋諸腦後，結果換來官司纏身。
行政長官面對潛在利益衝突事宜，在特區政府架構之內，誠然沒有「上司」可以諮詢，可是曾蔭權大可諮詢其他司長意見，而不是自把自為。對於曾蔭權而言，特首接受富商朋友私人款待的「內部」守則，就真的只存在於其腦部之內，案情亦顯示他從沒有向身邊官員和幕僚說過，希望就潛在利益衝突事宜與他人商討，如何監督自己，完全是自己一個人說了算。
修訂防止賄賂條例 速定時間表勿拖延
公職人員由收受利益一刻開始，已經失去誠信，令人無法相信他/她可以公正履行職責，有否作出特定報答行為，已經不再重要。曾蔭權自言與家人經過5年多的「磨折」，感到心力交瘁，然而禍福無門，唯人自招。曾蔭權由被揭接受富豪以私人飛機及遊艇接載款待，到後來鬧出深圳東海花園豪宅風波，對瓜田李下毫不避忌，還反過來質疑公眾期望「過高」，最終身陷法網，很難獲得公眾認同。
陪審團一再無法達成有效裁決，控方選擇將控罪交予法庭存檔，不排除日後「情况有變」時再度申請重審，說不上是罕見做法，不過鑑於案件備受社會關注，律政司應該考慮在適當時候，向公眾解釋今次決定既非出於同情，亦非有意留難。2012年，曾蔭權與富商巨賈千絲萬縷關係曝光後，政府委任終審法院前首席法官李國能領導獨立委員會，檢討如何處理特首潛在利益衝突問題。委員會其中一項建議是修訂《防止賄賂條例》，將行政長官收受利益納入規管範圍，惟5年過去，建議仍未落實，情况令人遺憾。
現任行政長官林鄭月娥發表《施政報告》，重提修訂防賄條例，惟未見具體時間表。政府遲遲未作修訂，一大理由是行政長官憲制地位「超然」，需要從長計議，通盤考慮相關憲制法律規定，然而本港是法治社會，特首不可能凌駕法律，李國能亦不認為相關修訂存在憲制或法律障礙。政府有責任加快修例步伐，提出具體時間表，不應一拖再拖。
An unsettled case
FORMER CHIEF EXECUTIVE (CE) Donald Tsang twice stood trial for the crime
of accepting an advantage, but no valid verdict against him could be reached.
The prosecution decided not to seek another retrial for the time being.
Shelved, the case may remain unsettled for ever. Tsang is quite unlikely to be
prosecuted for that crime again.
On the face of it, Tsang may breathe a sigh of relief. However,
suspicions that he had received an advantage have not actually been dispelled.
They may be a burden he cannot possibly rid himself of in his remaining years.
The prosecution's failure to adduce sufficient evidence of the guilt of an
accused person does not imply his or her innocence. The public have
requirements and expectations about high-ranking officials' conduct. The CE
ought to set a good example and try hard to be "whiter than white".
Tsang consigned the public's reasonable expectations to the back of his mind
and has, as a result, been encumbered with lawsuits.
A public officer loses his honesty and trustworthiness when he accepts
an advantage. He or she will by doing so make it impossible for people to
believe he or she will impartially carry out his or her duties. It does not
matter whether he or she does anything in return. Tsang has said he and his
family feel worn out both physically and mentally because of the torment they
have suffered over the past five-odd years. However, disaster or happiness
knows no doors; one brings it upon oneself. After he was reported to have
allowed tycoons to get him around in their private jets and yachts, the
Shenzhen Donghai Garden luxury flat scandal broke. He got caught in the net of
justice because he did not avoid arousing suspicions like him "who does
not refrain from pulling his shoes in a melon patch or adjusting his cap under
a plum tree". But he suspects the public's expectations of him to be
"excessively high". He can hardly win citizens' approval.
As the second jury failed to come to a valid verdict, the prosecution
decided to leave the bribery charge against Tsang on file at the High Court.
There is no ruling out the possibility of another retrial being sought when a
"change of circumstance" arises. This does not count as rare.
However, given the attention society has paid to the case, the Secretary for
Justice should consider explaining at an opportune moment to the public that
the decision was made neither out of sympathy nor out of a desire to make
things difficult. It was exposed in 2012 that Tsang and some tycoons were
entangled in an intricate web of interests. The government then appointed
former Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal Andrew Li to head an
independent committee that would review how the question of the CE's potential
conflicts of interest should be handled. The committee recommended, inter alia,
that the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance be amended so that the CE's acceptance
of advantages would be within its ambit. Five years has gone, but the
recommendation has not yet been implemented. That is regrettable.
CE Carrie Lam (incumbent) mentioned the amendment of the Prevention of
Bribery Ordinance in her policy address. But no specific timetable for that is
visible yet. The government has postponed having it amended mainly because of
the CE's "transcendent" constitutional position. It is believed that
the matter must be carefully considered and all relevant rules of
constitutional law must be comprehensively looked at. However, Hong Kong is a
place where the law rules, and its CE is not above the law. Andrew Li does not
think there are any constitutional or legal obstacles to the amendment of the
Ordinance. The government is obligated to step up the amendment process. It
should come up with a specific timetable. It must delay no more.
收受利益成為懸案 心力交瘁與人無尤
前行政長官曾蔭權被控收受利益罪，兩度審訊均未能達成有效裁決，控方決定暫時不再要求重審。案件束諸高閣，有可能成為永恒懸案，曾蔭權再遭起訴機率相當低。
表面上，曾蔭權似乎可以鬆一口氣，然而涉嫌收受利益的控罪，其實並沒有真正消失，有可能成為曾蔭權餘生一個永遠無法卸下的包袱。法律證據無法證明有罪，不代表被告清白，公眾對高官操守有要求有期望，身為行政長官更應該以身作則，務求「比白紙更白」。曾蔭權將公眾對特首的合理期望拋諸腦後，結果換來官司纏身。
公職人員由收受利益一刻開始，已經失去誠信，令人無法相信他/她可以公正履行職責，有否作出特定報答行為，已經不再重要。曾蔭權自言與家人經過5年多的「磨折」，感到心力交瘁，然而禍福無門，唯人自招。曾蔭權由被揭接受富豪以私人飛機及遊艇接載款待，到後來鬧出深圳東海花園豪宅風波，對瓜田李下毫不避忌，還反過來質疑公眾期望「過高」，最終身陷法網，很難獲得公眾認同。
陪審團一再無法達成有效裁決，控方選擇將控罪交予法庭存檔，不排除日後「情况有變」時再度申請重審，說不上是罕見做法，不過鑑於案件備受社會關注，律政司應該考慮在適當時候，向公眾解釋今次決定既非出於同情，亦非有意留難。2012年，曾蔭權與富商巨賈千絲萬縷關係曝光後，政府委任終審法院前首席法官李國能領導獨立委員會，檢討如何處理特首潛在利益衝突問題。委員會其中一項建議是修訂《防止賄賂條例》，將行政長官收受利益納入規管範圍，惟5年過去，建議仍未落實，情况令人遺憾。
沒有留言:
張貼留言