「廉政門」含混過關 廉潔價值將花果飄零

<轉載自2013年5月7日 明報 社評>  

 

前任廉政專員湯顯明涉及不當酬酢、送禮以外，據知5年任內，他和廉署共收取約450份禮物，懷疑部分禮物價值超過上限，湯顯明未按規定報請行政長官批准，有干犯《防止賄賂條例》之嫌。收禮與酬酢和送禮一樣，表面上湯顯明責任最大，不過，整體事態仍是「團隊」運作，例如涉及他的副官和社區關係處等，若情况仍然由廉署關起門調查，自己人查自己人，市民更難有信心。政府拒絕成立獨立調查委員會處理，我們期望立法會議員（特別是建制派）從愛護香港出發，引用特權條例組織專責委員會調查此事；若這個期望落空，能夠挽回廉署形象、重拾市民信任的只有廉署自己，若處理未能讓人看得見大公無私，市民會對廉署信心盡失。

 

5年收禮約450份對廉署是莫大諷刺

廉署人員受收禮規則規管，其中禮物價值逾400元至1000元，並刻上了獲贈人員姓名，只要上司許可，有關人員可保留禮物；至於價值逾1000元的禮物，除非情况十分特殊，否則不能收禮。內地官場以送禮為名，買官賣官，已經成為潛規則，官場貪污腐敗與此直接有關。本港歷來嚴限禮物價值，法理以外顧及人情，目的是要維護廉潔政治和健康官場生態，但是湯顯明治下的廉署與此背道而馳。

據知，湯顯明任專員期間，他和廉署共收禮約450次，平均4天收禮一次，收禮之頻繁，使人側目。收禮、受禮往往是廉署人員調查貪污個案的線索，在湯顯明治下，廉署如此頻密大量地收禮，與其角色和屬性格格不入。另外，一般公務、公職人員須獲政策局常秘或部門首長批准，才可以收受禮物，廉政專員則須由行政長官批准。據知，湯顯明和廉署收受的禮物，不乏茅台酒和XO干邑，一般價值都超過1000元，不過，懷疑湯顯明並無向行政長官申請批准，若屬實，這是不依規定辦事，而事態性質與《防止賄賂條例》有牴觸。

廉潔社會肅貪倡廉在香港植根之後，政府部門送禮收禮顯得格外謹慎，深怕一時不察誤墮法網，於是有明確規定，供公務員與公職人員遵行；至於一般私人機構，僱員收禮須得到僱主首肯，就是要避免違法情事。對於收禮受禮，其實廉署應該最敏感，因為不少違反防賄條例的案件都與此有關，偏偏負責執行防賄條例的廉署，在湯顯明主政期間顯得那麼稀鬆平常，貪污腐敗政府的表徵，廉署卻是那麼優為之，事態超乎想像。

本報接連報道湯顯明超支酬酢、不當送禮等，從他和廉署頻密收禮看來，這種禮尚往來互動密切，性質是普通交往抑或帶有工作性質，使人有懸念。據知去年2月，廉署就前任特首曾蔭權接受富豪款待等行徑，決定展開調查翌日，中聯辦官員邀約湯顯明晚上會面，由於時機敏感，廉署內部不少人就此竊竊私語。當然，無證據證明中聯辦官員向湯顯明查詢案情，或湯向中聯辦官員通報情况，因此無法確知會否有不妥，但是廉署與中聯辦並無工作關係，在敏感時刻卻不避忌，若屬考慮不周，算是無心之失；不過，若中聯辦「查詢」、廉署「匯報」是他們的「工作關係」，則湯顯明與中聯辦之間的互動性質，就大有問題了。

專人打點飲宴送禮收禮 廉署浪費資源荒廢正事

綜合「廉政門」種種不當或涉嫌違法情事，絕非僅湯顯明的個人行為，據知有副官替他打點，另外，社區關係處轄下的內地聯絡組多名人員，負責安排湯及處長穆斐文的酬酢、送禮、收禮和外訪等活動事宜，廉署本應是社會其中一個重要「守門人」，守護極其重要的廉潔核心價值，卻撥出寶貴資源為首長人員吃喝玩樂服務，浪費資源、荒廢正事，莫此為甚。

湯顯明5年任內，除了表面的不當情事，事態性質和還有什麼情况，亟需釐清，特首梁振英只成立獨立檢討委員會，只檢討制度，不追究個人責任；另外，廉署的調查是自己人查自己人，本來就難以取信於人，而且不當或不法情事又牽涉內部首長級領導的團隊，很難想像有人會自請紀律或法律處分；帳委會的調查則只限於審計報告的衡工量值範圍，不可能找出真相。目前唯一可能牽動整件事的，是立法會引用權力及特權條例，組織專責委員會調查，按目前情况，建制派議員會抗拒用特權法調查。不過，建制派議員應從宏觀方向審視此事：若市民對廉署失去信心，廉潔的核心價值不再理所當然，則社會將進一步沉落。期望立法會議員着眼香港最根本利益，摒除成見，為香港做一件好事。

Editorial

Clean government is at stake

FORMER ICAC Commissioner Timothy Tong was involved not only in improper entertainment and gift-making. We understand that, in the five years when he headed the ICAC, he and the Commission received about 450 gifts, of which some were worth more than the highest permissible value. There is a suspicion that he failed to apply to the Chief Executive (CE) for permission as required. He might have violated the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.

 

Gift-taking often yields clues useful to ICAC officers investigating corruption cases. It is incompatible with its role and nature that the ICAC received valuable gifts so frequently under Timothy Tong's leadership. A civil servant may not retain a gift without the permission of the head of his department or the permanent secretary of his bureau. The ICAC Commissioner may not do so without the CE's permission. We gather many of the gifts Timothy Tong received were maotai or XO cognac, of which a bottle usually costs more than $1,000. There is a suspicion that he failed to apply to the CE for permission. If that is the case, he broke a rule - acted in contravention of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.

 

As this newspaper has continually reported, Timothy Tong overspent on entertainment and improperly made gifts. He and the ICAC accepted valuable gifts so frequently that one may doubt whether such reciprocal dealings were normal or had to do with business. We gather that, in February last year, officials of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government (LOCPG) invited Timothy Tong to meet them in the evening the day after the ICAC had decided to probe into allegations that Donald Tsang (who was then CE) had enjoyed some tycoons' hospitality. As that was a sensitive moment, many ICAC officers whispered about it. There is of course no evidence that any LOCPG officials inquired about the case or he gave them any information on it. Therefore, it is impossible to ascertain whether any harm was done. However, what the ICAC does is none of the LOCPG's business. Timothy Tong might have failed to avoid doing what might arouse suspicions at that sensitive moment because he was not circumspect. In that case, one may say he made an inadvertent mistake. However, if LOCPG officials made it their business to inquire about any case or Timothy Tong made it his to report to them, one may say the interactions between him and them were of a dubious nature.

 

The irregular or even illegal acts in connection with the ICAC-gate involved not just Timothy Tong alone. We gather that his lieutenants took care of things for him and a number of officers of the Hong Kong Mainland Liaison Office of the Community Relations Department made arrangements for his and Director of Community Relations Julie Mu's entertainment, gift-making and visits to other places. The ICAC should act as a major goalkeeper. It is supposed to safeguard clean government, an extremely important part of Hong Kong's core values. However, it has spent some of its precious resources on its leading officers' wining, dining and other pleasures. Nothing is more wasteful or obstructive to its proper business than that.

 

The only way to set the wheels in motion now is for the Legislative Council to set up a committee to look into the matter under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. Establishmentarian legislators are against doing so. However, they ought to look at the affair from a macroscopic perspective. If citizens no longer have confidence in the ICAC and can no longer take clean government for granted, Hong Kong will sink even lower. We hope legislators will, having regard to its fundamental interests, abandon their prejudices and do Hong Kong a good turn.

 

明報社評 2013.05.07﹕「廉政門」含混過關 廉潔價值將花果飄零

 

前任廉政專員湯顯明涉及不當酬酢、送禮以外，據知5年任內，他和廉署共收取約450份禮物，懷疑部分禮物價值超過上限，湯顯明未按規定報請行政長官批准，有干犯《防止賄賂條例》之嫌。

 

收禮、受禮往往是廉署人員調查貪污個案的線索，在湯顯明治下，廉署如此頻密大量地收禮，與其角色和屬性格格不入。另外，一般公務、公職人員須獲政策局常秘或部門首長批准，才可以收受禮物，廉政專員則須由行政長官批准。據知，湯顯明和廉署收受的禮物，不乏茅台酒和XO干邑，一般價值都超過1000元，不過，懷疑湯顯明並無向行政長官申請批准，若屬實，這是不依規定辦事，而事態性質與《防止賄賂條例》有牴觸。

 

本報接連報道湯顯明超支酬酢、不當送禮等，從他和廉署頻密收禮看來，這種禮尚往來互動密切，性質是普通交往抑或帶有工作性質，使人有懸念。據知去年2月，廉署就前任特首曾蔭權接受富豪款待等行徑，決定展開調查翌日，中聯辦官員邀約湯顯明晚上會面，由於時機敏感，廉署內部不少人就此竊竊私語。當然，無證據證明中聯辦官員向湯顯明查詢案情，或湯向中聯辦官員通報情况，因此無法確知會否有不妥，但是廉署與中聯辦並無工作關係，在敏感時刻卻不避忌，若屬考慮不周，算是無心之失；不過，若中聯辦「查詢」、廉署「匯報」是他們的「工作關係」，則湯顯明與中聯辦之間的互動性質，就大有問題了。

 

綜合「廉政門」種種不當或涉嫌違法情事，絕非僅湯顯明的個人行為，據知有副官替他打點，另外，社區關係處轄下的內地聯絡組多名人員，負責安排湯及處長穆斐文的酬酢、送禮、收禮和外訪等活動事宜，廉署本應是社會其中一個重要「守門人」，守護極其重要的廉潔核心價值，卻撥出寶貴資源為首長人員吃喝玩樂服務，浪費資源、荒廢正事，莫此為甚。

目前唯一可能牽動整件事的，是立法會引用權力及特權條例，組織專責委員會調查，按目前情况，建制派議員會抗拒用特權法調查。不過，建制派議員應從宏觀方向審視此事：若市民對廉署失去信心，廉潔的核心價值不再理所當然，則社會將進一步沉落。期望立法會議員着眼香港最根本利益，摒除成見，為香港做一件好事。