「公職人員行為失當」 端正官箴的緊箍咒

<轉載自2013年5月24日 明報 社評>

警司黃冠豪接受一家食肆的飲食折扣，又容許食肆無牌賣酒，被法庭裁定公職人員行為失當罪名成立，等候判刑，按過去法庭判例，黃冠豪極有可能身繫囹圄。此案說明「公職人員行為失當」是端正官箴的利器，提醒公職人員必須循規蹈矩，警惕他們正確行使權力，否則就要付出代價。案中黃冠豪所得利益不多，仍要面對嚴厲制裁，相對於坐擁大權、而涉及利益更明顯的行為，例如前任特首曾蔭權接受富豪朋友款待等，黃冠豪與之相比，遠有不如，廉署須向公衆交代曾蔭權案的調查情况，使市民看到一視同仁的法治精神。

 

警司接受飲食折扣 法官裁定行為不當

案發時，黃冠豪是灣仔分區指揮官，職務包括批准酒牌申請。控方指出，前年黃冠豪曾經3次光顧銅鑼灣一家食肆，都無付足帳單所列收費，包括一次帳單2200多元，他只用信用卡付款300多元；亦有一次在貴賓室免費享用一支威士忌，價值超過1000元。當時食肆未有酒牌，其後黃冠豪接到有關食肆的酒牌申請，他並未提出反對。另外，法官在裁決時，列出39項例子，指被告與部分辯方證人的證供矛盾，包括被告曾稱不知獲食肆送贈威士忌，其後又承認知情等。

黃冠豪罪名成立，主要是符合公職人員行為不當罪的元素，包括：身為公職人員接受食肆飲食折和洋酒饋贈，並未向上司申報；明知食肆無牌賣酒，知情不報；另外，行使職權簽批有關食肆的酒牌申請。按冼錦華案的案例，當年冼身為高級警務人員，收受了賣淫集團主腦提供的免費妓女服務，他並未舉報賣淫集團，雖然負責職務與掃黃無關，亦不涉及通風報信，法庭仍然認為冼錦華的行為已經足夠構成公職人員行為失當罪，判處他入獄。相較之下，黃冠豪涉及的利益，明顯而具體，罪名成立符合處理同類案件的精神。

此案並未了結，法官在裁決時，表示懷疑不止被告一人有問題，整個小隊都可能有問題，下令要求廉署調查是否有證人同流合污或作假證供。既然法官要求，廉署要跟進，事態極可能擴大，或許會有更多警務人員惹上官非。

這宗使一名警司犯罪和其他警務人員可能出事的案件，具體就是3次吃喝，帳單共約4500元和一瓶威士忌，案情顯示，黃冠豪並非一文不付，只是獲得折扣而已，就實際價值而言，涉及利益不算多，卻牽連了那麼多人，是否小題大做了？這類事情，事涉官箴，不能以表面價值衡量，因為擁有權力的人，若做出這些事而毋須付出代價，則害群之馬必然會利用權力牟取更大不法利益，官場就會貪污成風，腐敗不堪。上世紀60年代警隊的結構性貪污，相信起初也只是權力行使不當，逐步演變，使香港出現烏煙瘴氣的局面。所以，制約公職人員行為不當，就是要起到防微杜漸的效果。

曾蔭權接受富豪款待 廉署須交代調查結果

現行法例對付行賄、受賄，以《防止賄賂條例》處理，但是一些表面利益不明顯的行為，許多時調查有困難，「公職人員行為失當」填補了這個空間。按冼錦華案的先例，控方毋須證明被告人收受利益或與其公職上的作為或不作為有關連，舉證門檻較低，絕大多數公職人員因此都如履薄冰，深怕一時不察誤墮法網。這就是去年曾蔭權被揭發接受富豪款待時，在公務員隊伍之間引起極大反響的原因。

當時，曾蔭權屬於公職人員，享用了富豪朋友提供的私人遊艇和私人飛機服務，他雖然表示有支付費用，但是與真實價值相去老遠，按一般理解，曾蔭權接受富豪款待所得服務質素，遠高於黃冠豪3次飲食折扣的價值；另外，還有一個重要元素，就是曾蔭權支付的費用，若其他人可享同等服務，在法律上就沒有問題，否則有可能觸犯公職人員行為失當罪。按黃冠豪涉案的情節，已經在等待判刑，曾蔭權涉及的事，當日有人向廉署舉報，按規定廉署要展開調查，但是超過一年了，調查到了哪一個階段，是否已經結案？外界一點也不知道。

基於曾蔭權身分特殊，接受款待時權傾香江，廉署或當局應該交代調查進展，因為曾蔭權一度打算離任後入住深圳的一所超級豪宅（事態被揭發後退租），業主是商人黃楚標，而黃是數碼電台大股東。然則，當年行政會議審議批出數碼電台牌照時，曾蔭權有沒有申報利益，廉署的調查應該了解這一點，並向公衆交代。同樣地，前任廉政專員湯顯明的公帑酬酢飲宴，據知與廉署業務無關的湯顯明女友和黃楚標，也曾在座，情况是否涉及有人觸犯公職人員行為失當罪，廉署也要向公衆交代。

總之，「公職人員行為失當」烈性程度不及防止賄賂條例，但是「失當罪名」既廣泛、也較容易暴露潛在利益，所以，這是端正官箴的緊箍咒，就看執法部門是否一視同仁，公正執法而已。

Editorial


Misconduct in public office

SUPERINTENDENT Titus Wong, who got discounts from an eatery and allowed it to sell liquor without a licence, has been convicted of misconduct in public office (MIPO). He is yet to be sentenced. Such are the precedents that he is very likely to go to jail.

 

It was three meals worth totally $4,500 and a bottle of whiskey that made the superintendent fall foul of the law and might land other police officers in trouble. According to what the court was told, Titus Wong did pay the eatery. Those meals were not totally free, and what he got was only discounts. The advantages in question cannot be described as great in value, but the case involves many people. Has a mountain been made out of a molehill? Cases concerning public officers' behaviour should not be taken at face value. The reason is that, if people who wield power may do such things with impunity, black sheep will abuse power for even greater unlawful gain, and corruption will become rampant in officialdom.

Bribery now falls within the ambit of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. However, investigators may encounter difficulties where acts are not apparently linked to advantages. MIPO fills the gap. According to the Sin Kam-wah case, the prosecution need not show an advantage the accused has received to be linked to what he has done or omitted to do in his official capacity. The burden of proof being relatively light, most public officers tread very carefully lest they should unknowingly fall foul of the law. That is why reports that Donald Tsang had received tycoons' hospitality had serious repercussions among civil servants when they came out last year.

When he was a public officer, Donald Tsang went aboard private yachts and private jets his tycoon friends owned. He said he had paid for those rides, but what he paid fell way below the true value of the services. It is generally understood that the value of the services Donald Tsang received from those tycoons far exceeds that of the three discounts Titus Wong obtained from the eatery. Furthermore, there is an important factor. If another could enjoy a service Donald Tsang did enjoy for as much money as he did pay, he would have done no wrong in the eyes of the law. Otherwise, he might have committed MIPO. Titus Wong is to be sentenced for what he has done. Complaints were filed against Donald Tsang with the ICAC, which ought to have started its investigation as required. More than a year has since elapsed. What stage has its investigation reached? Has the file been closed? The public have not the faintest idea.

Donald Tsang was somebody when he enjoyed his tycoon friends' hospitality. He was then the most powerful person in Hong Kong. The ICAC ought to tell the public how the investigation has progressed. Donald Tsang once planned to move after his retirement into a super-luxurious apartment in Shenzhen owned by Bill Wong, a businessman, though he scrapped the plan after it had come to light. Bill Wong is a major shareholder in Digital Broadcasting Corporation. Did Donald Tsang declare his interests when the Executive Council looked at its licence application? This the ICAC ought to find out and let the public know.

In short, though it is a less serious offence than a violation of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, MIPO covers a wider range and it is easier to expose potential advantages in MIPO cases. It is therefore a magic tool that helps persuade public officers to behave correctly and cautiously. The question is whether law-enforcement agencies perform their duty impartially and without discrimination.