The Man behind the Curtain and the Scarecrow
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
July 19, 2007
Financial Supervisory Commissioners
The Rebar Asia Pacific Group is currently tens of bilions of dollars in debt. A judge has discovered that the Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) has been covering up the Rebar Asia Pacific Group's illegal loans. Officials were derelict in their duty. They abused state power to ingratiate themselves with company officials, covering up for them, helping them out of their jam.
Question and answer sessions between judges and company officials over the past two days have revealed just how hollow the nation's financial oversight mechanisms are. Not only were FSC officials arrogant, passing the buck whenever they could, they were completely unwilling to engage in self-introspection. Taipei District Court Judge Tseng Cheng-lung characterized the manner in which the FSC dealt with the Great Chinese Bills Finance Corporation's illegal loans as: catching a thief but letting him go, allowing him to keep half the loot and pay back the rest on the installment plan. No wonder District Court Presiding Judge Lee Ying-hao reprimanded FSC officials, saying that "You have totally undermined public trust in the government!"
The judges were hardly alone. The public knew exactly how they felt. The difference between the FSC and the other machinery of the central government, is that financial oversight is its central responsibility, its basic duty, Its goal is to nip corruption in the bud, in order to maintain the nation's financial stability. As matters stand, it has abandoned its oversight responsibility and disregarded laws and regulations in order to assist business cronies evade the law. Are officials nothing more than scarecrows wielding state power? Wang You-theng emptied out Rebar Asia Pacific Group's coffers. The FSC inititially tried to cover up the scandal. To quote District Court Presiding Judge Lee Ying-hao: "Do we really need officials like this?"
Such officials can be described as scarecrows, because they neglect their duties by shelving their authority instead of exercising it. One moment Bank Bureau Assistant Commissioner Lin Tung-liang says "We cannot concern ourselves only with the law, and not concern ourselves wtih business management." The next moment he says "We have no authority to investigate shell companies." The moment after that he says "Our manpower was inadequate." What we would like to know is, what exactly does he think his responsibilities ought to be?
FSC Vice Chairperson Susan Chang said, "if only we had known sooner" that the Rebar Asia Pacific Group had problems, we would have aggressively prosecuted the case. Her response merely revealed her buck-passing mentality. The public has never expected officials to be prophets. They merely expect officials to administer in accordance with the law. The FSC can't even manage to "paint by the numbers." Yet it wants to talk about "looking after the nation's businesses" and "stabilizing the nation's finances?" We really can't think of any reason why the government should pay these Financial Supervisory Commission officials their inflated salaries.
Whether the reason is plain and simple incompetence, or criminal complicity, the emergence of one FSC scandal after another shows that the nation's highest financial supervisory body is completely ineffective and has lost all credibility. Lest we forget, among the many "independent" agencies established during the Chen regime's term of office, the FSC is the one most closely controlled by the ruling DPP regime, the one that has shouldered the most vital responsibilities, and the one responsible for the most outrageous scandals. In three short years, its committee chairman, vice-committee chairman, bureau chief, and numerous committee members have all been thrown in prison. Rather than argue that its director is a "bad judge of character," it would be more accurate to say that from the day of its inception, this agency was deprived of its independent status due to political considerations, resulting in the loss of its financial oversight function.
The current Great Chinese Bills Finance Corp case involves illegal loans as long as seven or eight years, repeatedly exposed by lower echelon whistle-blowers. The FSC repeatedly bent the rules. Officials testified in court, acknowledging that they received "instructions from the Executive Yuan." Some indicated that they were ordered to comply with President Chen's requests to relieve the effects of the financial crunch. Obviously, the FSC abetted Great Chinese Bills Finance Corp. wrongdoing. On the one hand the president issued his imperial decree. On the other hand, high level senior officials issued detailed instructions. Judges have uncovered a row of scarecrows. But if they can't uncover the "Man behind the Curtain," then aren't they wasting their time?
If we want to discuss the erosion of public trust in government over the past several years, FSC collusion and abuse of power is merely the tip of the iceberg. It is merely an isolated example of an across the board loss of government effectiveness. The Chen regime cares only whether its personnel are friends and relations, not whether they are professional and capable. It has destroyed the civil service system's neutrality and stability. It has destroyed its automatic checks and balances. In the past, financial oversight authority and responsibility were divided among the Central Bank, the Ministry of Finance, and a number of other agencies, each of which checked and balanced the other. The concentration of authority in the FSC has paradoxically allowed financial irregularities to sprout like mushrooms. The main reason of course is that given such concentration of authority, the "Man behind the Curtain" need only issue a single command to implement his goal.
One after another, Kong Jaw-sheng, Lin Chung-cheng, and Lee Chin-cheng were indicted. These politically connected nouveau riches were corrupted by power. But Susan Chang, Gary Tseng and other experienced, long time civil servants have also found themselves knee deep in corruption. Obviously Green Dynasty political toxins have spread to the very heart of the administration.
State power has been transformed into political tool. An independent agency entrusted with financial oversight has degenerated into a criminal gang dedicated to financial plunder. Who bears greater responsibility? The "Man behind the Curtain" or the "Scarecrow?"
藏鏡人和稻草人：金融監理變成金融盜匪
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.07.19 03:31 am
力霸集團捅出虧空數百億的大窟窿，法官發現金檢機構長年縱容力霸關係企業違法放貸，官員不僅怠忽職守，更拿公權力大作人情，包庇放水，幫業者解套。
這兩天法官與官員在法庭上的問答，讓人見識了國家金融監理機制的形同虛設。金管會官員不僅態度傲慢，處處推託，更對自己的顢頇一無反省。法官曾正龍形容金管會處理力華票券違貸，就像抓到小偷不辦，還和盜賊私了，准許贓款減半、分期償還。也難怪法官李英豪當庭痛斥：「公權力都被你們玩完了！」
法官們的沈痛，國人亦皆感同身受。金管會不同於一般行政機構，金融監理是它最核心、也是最基本的任務，目的在防微杜漸，維護國家金融秩序的安定。但現在，它不僅拋棄監理職責，更無視法令規章，一再對違法業者私下放水，官員難道只是手握公權力的「稻草人」？王又曾掏空力霸，原來金管會還居間扮演了包庇窩藏的角色，讓人痛心疾首。套用李英豪的話：「要這些公務員幹嘛？」
稱這些官員是看守公權力的「稻草人」，是因他們怠忽職守，將公權力束諸高閣。銀行局副局長林棟樑忽而聲稱「不能只管法令，不管企業經營」，忽而表示「無權查虛設公司」，忽而改口「人力不足」；說東說西，請問：他眼裡還有什麼自己應負的責任？
副主委張秀蓮則說，如果「早知道」力霸會出事，早就強行處理了；這更反映出強詞奪理的推諉心態。國家從未要求官員作預言家，只要求官員「依法行政」。金管會連「照步數來」這麼基本的行政邏輯都不能遵循，卻奢言要「照顧企業」、「穩定金融」，真不知國家何以要付薪水給這些金管官員？
是單純的無能也好，或涉及犯罪情節也罷，金管會層出不窮的弊案，都說明這個國家最高金檢機構已徹底失能，也完全失去了公信。別忘了，在扁政府任內新成立的獨立機構中，金管會是執政當局隻手牢牢掌控的單位，肩負最重要的任務，卻也爆發了最多端的弊情；僅僅三年，主委、副主委、局長、委員一干人皆深陷牢獄之災。與其說是主政者識人不明，不如說這個機構一開始就因政治動機被剝奪了獨立性格，終至喪失了金融監理的本能。
看這次的力華票券案，涉及違法貸放長達七、八年，屢遭基層查獲，金檢當局卻不斷給予通融。官員在庭上作證，承認受到「行政院指示」，亦有人指稱是配合陳總統要求消除金融緊縮情況的指示行事。可見，金管會對力華放水，一方面有總統諭令當尚方寶劍，另一方面還有具體的高層長官下達指令。現在，法官查到一排稻草人，若不揪出幕後藏鏡人，豈不白忙一場？
的確，要論國家公權力近幾年的消損，金管會的放水、濫權恐怕只是冰山一角；這從整體行政治理的失能，即可見一斑。扁政府用人但視親疏、不重專業，不僅摧毀了文官體系的中立及穩定性，更使得行政機構的自動勾稽和制衡作用消失。過去金融監理權責分散在央行及財政部等不同部會手中，彼此尚能層層節制；但事權集中至金管會後反而紕漏百出，主要原因，不就是政治藏鏡人只要一個口令就能輕易貫徹其目的嗎？
值得警惕的是，先前龔照勝、林忠正、李進誠等人涉案，尚可稱是「政治新貴」因暴得權力而墮落；但今天張秀蓮、曾國烈等久經文官歷練的官員也泥足深陷，可見綠朝帶進的政治汙染已滲透到了行政體系的心臟地帶。
公權力變成唯政治是從的工具，金融監理機構當然要淪為金融盜匪的共犯。藏鏡人和稻草人，誰能說誰的責任少一點？
No comments:
Post a Comment