梁振英對「廉政門」 高高舉起輕輕放下

<轉載自2013年5月3日 明報 社評>

 

就湯顯明超支酬酢和不當送禮等做法，特首梁振英宣布成立獨立檢討委員會（下稱「獨檢會」）處理，乍看之下，以為政府以果斷手段整飭廉署，但是細看獨檢會的成員和職權範圍，實際上只在廉署的制度與程序醬缸中打轉，與市民期望問責從而重建廉署形象，有顯著落差。連同獨檢會和廉署接獲舉報而採取的行動，目前湯顯明事件最關鍵部分，基本上由自己人查自己人，政府這種做法，淨化廉署效果有限，也無助於恢復市民對廉署肅貪倡廉、維護廉潔核心價值的信心和信任。

 

性質嚴重竟不採取法定調查 所謂檢討卻抓不到癢處

過去，有重大事故和涉及公衆利益重大事件，政府按法例規定成立獨立調查委員會處理，早有先例。因為這個機制夠權威，有傳召證人的權力等，最重要是聆訊公開舉行，一切都攤在陽光下檢視；過去類如鍾庭耀民調風波、維港巨星匯，以至近日宣布調查結果的南丫海難事故報告，都說明獨立調委會極具公信力，報告結果並無爭議。

梁振英宣布成立的獨檢會，無調查權，無權力傳召相關人等，檢討會議無規定要公開舉行，其職能與獨立調委會相比，相去甚遠。湯顯明事件，已有大量資料顯示廉署禮崩樂壞，它的公正、廉潔備受質疑，而廉潔是港人珍惜的核心價值，如此重大事件，政府竟然不以最高規格的獨立調委會處理，難道在政府心目中，廉署廉潔的重要性較諸涉及1億元的維港巨星匯猶有不如？使人大惑不解。

另外，主持檢討的4名獨立人士，其中3人是負責監察廉署工作的諮詢委員會主席，另一人是廉署事宜投訴委員會主席，他們都與廉署有關，湯顯明被揭發的不當行為，嚴格而言，他們在監察崗位未及時發覺，實際上不能完全脫離關係。所以，獨檢會的工作，從這個角度而言，有自己人檢討自己人之嫌。

獨檢會的職能，圍繞廉署既有規管制度和程序，基於這個前提，個人因素就變得不重要，即使有錯，也可以推說是按制度和程序處事而出錯，與個人無關。獨檢會職能範圍第2條，「覆核廉政公署各級人員於上任廉政專員任期內在規管制度和程序下的符規情况」，表面上，這個職能涉及個人因素，不過，若放在廉署既有體制審視，實際意義不大。因為制度和程序上，湯顯明本來就有權批准超支酬酢、送禮和外遊開支，即使有不當，其他人可以推說按專員的旨意行事，可以很輕易就過關。

另外，職能寫明只檢討公務酬酢、餽贈及外訪開支的規管制度和程序，而從已知資料，湯顯明事件涉及廉署向立法會提供送禮開支清單時，有失實陳述之嫌，性質關乎公職人員行為失當，只是按獨檢會的職能，對此無從過問。

整體而言，梁振英宣布成立的獨檢會，與前任特首曾蔭權成立類似委員會，檢討他自行批准收受禮物和款待的情况，如出一轍，都是以完善制度和程序之名，湮沒個人因素。不同的是，當日曾蔭權以形象獨立的退休大法官李國能主持檢討，現在梁振英則連形式獨立也欠奉。我們認為獨檢會目的在迴避關鍵問題，有大事化小、小事化無之嫌。

梁振英說廉署已經接獲對湯顯明的投訴，會按法例規定履行職責，另外，帳目委員會亦會開展相關聆訊，獨檢會的工作是與這兩方面適當配合，云云。帳委會的聆訊，囿於審計署報告的框框，不可能揭開整件事的真相；至於廉署接獲投訴履行職責，若梁振英的意思是廉署會立案調查，則自己人查自己人可以查出真相來？政府要回答這個問題。

政府不正本清源 無助重建廉潔信心

湯顯明在專員任內的不當情事，有大量資料顯示他並非單獨行事，而是在廉署內部得到其他人配合，包括採購、報銷開支等；湯顯明的超支酬酢，廉署的高層人員有不同程度參與；湯顯明的公帑飲宴，連他的女友和個別商人也在座；向立法會提供的送禮清單，扣起數以十萬元計禮物不申報，究竟是誰的主意等。在在顯示湯顯明的不當所為，只是以他為主的「團隊」結構性行為，涉及的廉署中人，相信現在仍然大權在握，正在履行梁振英所謂的職責，然則，他們會調查出自己參與了不當，甚至不法的做法，自請按法律規定處置？廉署查案，按其一貫密密實實的行事作風，根本毋須公開交代，所以，公衆將無從知道真相。

環繞湯顯明事件種種事態，已經使人對廉政和廉潔失去信心，政府的做法應該正本清源，從嚴問責，清理埋在廉署內部的腐敗因素，才會使人對廉署守護廉潔的核心價值，恢復信心；可惜政府不循此道，卻搭建平台淡化事態，更有為參與不當甚至不法情事人物開脫之嫌。這是梁振英就任特首10個月以來最大的失策，他在競選特首時以變革為號召，現在看來只是一句口號，只是一個美麗的誤會。

Editorial

ICAC-gate

CHIEF EXECUTIVE Leung Chun-ying has announced his decision to set up an independent review committee (IRC) to look into Timothy Tong's improper gift-making and overspending on entertainment. On the face of it, the government intends decisively to put the ICAC (Independent Commission Against Corruption) in order. However, a perusal of the IRC's composition and terms of reference shows that it will only wallow in the mire of the ICAC's rules and procedures. Citizens hoped the government would help refurbish the ICAC's image by holding the culprits liable. The arrangement clearly falls short of their expectations.

 

The IRC has no power to ascertain facts or summon those implicated, and its meetings are not required to be open to the public. Its powers and functions do not compare with an independent inquiry committee's. Much has emerged in relation to the Timothy Tong affair that shows the ICAC's systems have been seriously undermined. Its impartiality is now open to question, as is its incorruptibility. Clean government is part of Hong Kong's core values, which citizens very much cherish. Much is at stake, but the government has decided against setting up a high-level independent inquiry. Are we to suppose it considers the ICAC's incorruptibility less important than the Hong Kong Harbour Fest (which cost $100 million)? That is very baffling indeed.

The committee Leung Chun-ying has set up is largely similar to that which Donald Tsang appointed to look into the way he had given himself permission to accept gifts and enjoy hospitality. Such committees aim at glossing over misconduct in the name of improving rules and procedures. The only difference is that, whereas Donald Tsang put former Chief Justice Andrew Li (who has an independent image) in charge of the review, Leung Chun-ying does not even bother about apparent independence. We believe the IRC aims at circumventing crucial issues, and there are suspicions that it wants to play the affair down.

Leung Chun-ying said that the ICAC had received complaints about Timothy Tong and would discharge its statutory duties, that the Public Accounts Committee of the Legislative Council would hold a hearing, and that the IRC's effort would be complementary to the two bodies'. Thanks to the limitations of the Director of Audit's reports, the Public Accounts Committee cannot possibly unravel the whole truth. If by "discharge its statutory duties" Leung Chun-ying means "probe into the case", will the "self-investigation" yield the truth? The government must answer this question.

There is ample evidence that, when he was ICAC commissioner, Timothy Tong acted improperly with the cooperation of other ICAC officers rather than on his own - that his improper acts were organised acts of a "team" he headed. Conceivably, the officers involved still wield power and discharge what Leung Chun-ying calls duties. Will they find themselves to have taken part in what is improper or even illegal and ask that they be brought to justice? As ICAC investigators are secretive as a rule, the ICAC is not required to make its findings public. Therefore, there is no way the public can get to know the truth.

What has happened in relation to the Timothy Tong affair has lost citizens their confidence in clean government. The government ought to get to the root of the problem. It ought to hold the culprits liable and weed out what may breed corruption in the ICAC. Only if it does so will people again be confident that the ICAC can safeguard clean government. However, it has instead done what would help play the scandal down, arousing suspicions that it has tried to allow those who have taken part in what is improper or even illegal to get away with it. This is the most impolitic thing Leung Chun-ying has done since he became Chief Executive ten months ago. When he ran for the office, he pledged to bring about change. That pledge now appears to be no more than a slogan or a fond misunderstanding.

明報社評2013.05.03﹕梁振英對「廉政門」 高高舉起輕輕放下

就湯顯明超支酬酢和不當送禮等做法，特首梁振英宣布成立獨立檢討委員會（下稱「獨檢會」）處理，乍看之下，以為政府以果斷手段整飭廉署，但是細看獨檢會的成員和職權範圍，實際上只在廉署的制度與程序醬缸中打轉，與市民期望問責從而重建廉署形象，有顯著落差。

梁振英宣布成立的獨檢會，無調查權，無權力傳召相關人等，檢討會議無規定要公開舉行，其職能與獨立調查委員會相比，相去甚遠。湯顯明事件，已有大量資料顯示廉署禮崩樂壞，它的公正、廉潔備受質疑，而廉潔是港人珍惜的核心價值，如此重大事件，政府竟然不以最高規格的獨立調委會處理，難道在政府心目中，廉署廉潔的重要性較諸涉及1億元的維港巨星匯猶有不如？使人大惑不解。

整體而言，梁振英宣布成立的獨檢會，與前任特首曾蔭權成立類似委員會，檢討他自行批准收受禮物和款待的情况，如出一轍，都是以完善制度和程序之名，湮沒個人因素。不同的是，當日曾蔭權以形象獨立的退休大法官李國能主持檢討，現在梁振英則連形式獨立也欠奉。我們認為獨檢會目的在迴避關鍵問題，有大事化小、小事化無之嫌。

梁振英說廉署已經接獲對湯顯明的投訴，會按法例規定履行職責，另外，立法會政府帳目委員會亦會開展相關聆訊，獨檢會的工作是與這兩方面適當配合，云云。帳委會的聆訊，囿於審計署報告的框框，不可能揭開整件事的真相；至於廉署接獲投訴履行職責，若梁振英的意思是廉署會立案調查，則自己人查自己人可以查出真相來？政府要回答這個問題。

湯顯明在專員任內的不當情事，有大量資料顯示他並非單獨行事，而是在廉署內部得到其他人配合。在在顯示湯顯明的不當所為，只是以他為主的「團隊」結構性行為，涉及的廉署中人，相信現在仍然大權在握，正在履行梁振英所謂的職責，然則，他們會調查出自己參與了不當，甚至不法的做法，自請按法律規定處置？廉署查案，按其一貫密密實實的行事作風，根本毋須公開交代，所以，公衆將無從知道真相。

環繞湯顯明事件種種事態，已經使人對廉政和廉潔失去信心，政府的做法應該正本清源，從嚴問責，清理埋在廉署內部的腐敗因素，才會使人對廉署守護廉潔的核心價值，恢復信心；可惜政府不循此道，卻搭建平台淡化事態，更有為參與不當甚至不法情事人物開脫之嫌。這是梁振英就任特首10個月以來最大的失策，他在競選特首時以變革為號召，現在看來只是一句口號，只是一個美麗的誤會。