Oversight of the Legislature Must Meet Public Standards

Oversight of the Legislature Must Meet Public Standards
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 3, 2008

Ever since civic groups began overseeing the Legislature, whenever information was made public, the result would inevitably be polarization. The result would be criticisms and countercriticisms traded between ruling and opposition party legislators. This was true of the former Legislative Oversight Foundation, and it is true of today's Citizen Congress Watch. The most serious problem is a lack of information and a lack of proper evaluation criteria. Recently Citizen Congress Watch even erred in tabulating its grades. It had to apologize and bow three times to those legislators who received the worst grades, even before its report came out.
Consistent, objective, and unbiased oversight of the Legislature is hard to come by. Attendance rate used to be the sole criteria. Civic groups have been angrily criticized for their total ignorance of parliamentary procedure. In the end, apart from tabulating grades incorrectly, the results were the same. People believed what they wanted to believe. Civic groups cannot attend every session of the Legislature and every committee meeting. They cannot always be on the spot to apprehend the actual situation. They cannot always understand what legislators spoke about, or why the speeches had no impact whatsoever, positive or negative. Legislators' job performance cannot be evaluated quantitively using simple indices.

Citizen Congress Watch has added a new criterion for grading -- whether a legislator signed a pledge to support a Sunshine Law. Frankly speaking, asking politicians to make paper promises is like asking legislators to say "I am a man of virtue." Every one of them will mouth the words. But so what? Citizen Congress Watch is deducting points for not signing, but not following up on the actual performance of legislators who signed the petition. It does not seem to realize how many legislators who signed the petition have already committed acts that violate the letter and spirit of the Sunshine Laws. These acts include participating in construction projects, lobbying on behalf of special interests, falsely declaring one's assets, or accepting subsidies or allowances from special interests.

A legislator has many responsibilities. Some legislators devote most of their energy to holding press conferences and to criticizing opponents. Ruling and opposition party cadres must all do the same job, however unwillingly. Citizen Congress Watch gave KMT Legislator Hung Hsiu-chu its lowest grade. It accused her of being too ideologically oriented. But DPP legislators Ye Yi-ching, Two Shing-Jer, and Lai Ching-teh received Citizen Congress Watch's highest grade. Are they trying to tell us these three legislators are not ideologically oriented? Ye Yi-ching has consistently been an apologist for the Chen Shui-bian family. She has drowned the Legislature with her tears. If this is how Citizen Congress Watch intends to grade Legislators, it is going to have a hard time avoiding accusations of partisan bias. Hung Hsiu-chu is a member of the KMT Central Standing Committee. Some people are going to like what she says. Others are not. Is any ruling or opposition legislator going to be loved by voters across the entire political spectrum?

Take another example. Chiu Yi received a poor grade. Citizen Congress Watch even erred when tallying his score. Citizen Congress Watch claimed he "was not interested in doing his job, but instead liked to do exposes without sufficient evidence." But the Chen Shui-bian money-laundering scandals currently raging were the result of Chiu Yi's past exposes. He is hardly guilty of "doing exposes without sufficient evidence." If Citizen Congress Watch is serious about championing Sunshine Laws, it ought to feel disgusted by Chen Shui-bian's scandals. It should know that when the Taiwan Development scandal broke, Chiu Yi discovered several suspicious Chen family accounts. He even produced considerable material evidence, including suspicious account activities. Prosecutors sat on the case. Chiu Yi could do nothing about it. Legislators have a responsibilty to oversee the government. Chiu Yi cannot be accused of doing anything wrong.

Former President Chen Shui-bian is currently being subjected to the most stringent oversight. Let's not forget that when he was a Legislator, he made his name doing exposes. Those unfamiliar with the operation of the the Legislature may find this hard to understand. But anyone who does exposes, must have specific clues, and even informants who provide critical information. Otherwise the legislator will have nothing to expose. When Chen Shui-bian was a Legislator, he could access information only because former President Lee Teng-hui was in power and because the mainstream and non-mainstream factions were engaged in an ongoing power struggle. Investigators and Prosecutors have been sitting on cases. This has provoked public outrage. As a result, Chiu Yi has received inside information. Chiu Yi's exposes may be good, or they may be bad. But Chen Shui-bian was abusing the power of his office, Chiu Yi's use of the power of Legislative oversight was legitimate and appropriate.

Overseeing the machinery of democracy is essential. Oversight means people overseeing the government. The Control Yuan is an important branch of government. Its job is to oversee the government. The Legislative Yuan is the highest representative of the public. It has an even larger role in overseeing the government on behalf of the people. It reviews the budget, bills, and major policies. Any and all government scandals are subject to Legislative oversight. When Chen Shui-bian was a Legislator, it lacked the authority to investigate. But even then it could and did expose scandals. Today the Legislative Yuan has the authority both to investigate and to expose scandals. The only difference is that the Legislative Yuan still lacks the authority to administer punishment.

The Legislative Yuan must oversee the government. But it too must be overseen by the people. After all, ruling and opposition party legislators are also civil servants who accept taxpayer monies. The Legislative Yuan is hardly exempt from the requirements of clean government. Let's not forget that over the past eight years, countless administrators and legislators have also been involved in scandals. Ruling and opposition party legislators must be subject to oversight by groups such as Citizen Congress Watch. But their methods must be refined. They must more closely approximate the public mandate. They must understand why the people are angry. They must understand what the people find intolerable. As civic groups standing on the frontlines, they themselves will inevitably be subject to close examination. We hope Citizen's Congress Watch will find a more equitable way to oversee the government, one closer to the public's expectations, within the framework of an imperfect system

中時電子報
中國時報 　2008.09.03
監督國會 要有孚眾望的標準
中時社論

從 公民團體開始監督國會以來，歷次監督資料公布，反應幾無二致，都會引來朝野立委的批評和反彈。不論早期的國會觀察基金會，或者現在的公民監督國會聯盟，最 大的問題都是評鑑標準和資料來源的缺乏，這一回，竟然發生計分出錯的狀況，導致評鑑結果才公布，隔日就得向評分為最差的立委三鞠躬致歉。

無 可諱言，國會監督本來就很難找到齊一、又客觀公正的標準。過去出席率曾經是唯一標準，公民團體就被痛罵成完全不懂國會議事；後來加上發言次數，同樣見仁見 智，因為公民團體不可能委員會、院會場場都到，不可能實際了解議事現場狀況，朝野立委為什麼發言、發言後有沒有產生什麼正負面效果，都無法以「次數」這麼 簡單的標準，化約為立委的問政績效。

這一次，公督盟還加上一個立委有無簽署陽光國會承諾書，做為計分依據，坦白講，要求政客做「書紙承 諾」，就像要立委隨口說句「我是好人」一般，每個人都會這麼說，說了又如何？公督盟將不簽署者扣分，卻沒能力後續追蹤簽署承諾書的朝野立委實際表現如何， 遑論事前了解簽署承諾書的朝野立委有多少人早已犯下「不陽光」的惡劣行徑，從介入工程到特權關說，從財產申報不實或亂報到收取廠商各種名目的包養或津貼。

立 委問政內容和風格包羅萬象，有人大半心力在開記者會，批評對手，如朝野黨團幹部再不情願，既接了這個職務都得做相同的事，舉例而言，公督盟認為被評鑑最差 的國民黨立委之一洪秀柱，發言太過意識形態，難道被評鑑最優的民進黨立委葉宜津、涂醒哲、賴清德發言不意識形態嗎？葉宜津才為了過去屢屢幫扁家發言，而淚 灑國會。這樣的評鑑，當然難免遭致非議。洪秀柱是國民黨的中常委，發言一定有人愛聽，有人不愛聽，但朝野那個立委開口就得到全國人民愛戴的？

再 舉例而言，被扣分、甚至被計錯分的立委邱毅，公督盟認為他「本業沒做好卻愛做缺乏事證的爆料」，邱毅愛爆料確實不討人喜歡，但是，在扁家洗錢弊案全面爆發 的此刻，回頭去看邱毅過去這幾年的「爆料」，倒也並非全然「缺乏事證」，如果公督盟真正追求陽光政治，應該對扁家弊案深惡痛絕，應該不會不知道台開案爆發 時，邱毅就追出了若干扁家可疑的人頭帳戶，甚至也拿出了部分事證，諸如帳戶的可疑流向，檢察官不辦，邱毅莫可奈何，但站在立委監督政府的立場，不能說邱毅 所為為錯。

別忘了，如今被監督最嚴格的前總統陳水扁，當年擔任立委，同樣以揭弊爆料起家。不熟悉國會運作者或許很難明白，但凡揭弊者，若 非有具體線索、甚至線民，主動提供一定程度的資料，根本爆不出任何料，當年的陳水扁因為前總統李登輝初掌權，因為主流、非主流的權力鬥爭而得到爆料資訊； 如今的邱毅因為檢調不辦權力者所引起的反彈，而得到爆料資訊，不論對邱毅爆料的好與惡，相對而言，陳水扁還是為權力者所用，只要爆料不是無的放矢，邱是正 正當當地監督權力者，何錯之有？

監督是民主政治運作很重要的一環，監督的真義是人民監督政府，監察院當然是監督政府的重要機關，立法院做 為最高民意機關，代表人民監督政府的功能更大，除了審查預算、法案和重大政策，政府部門任何弊端都可以是立委問政的素材，陳水扁時代的立法院還沒有調查 權，都可以揭弊，如今立法院已經有調查權，更可以揭弊，差別只在立法院沒有任何行政懲處或司法懲罰的權柄。

當然，立法院監督政府，也得接 受人民的監督，畢竟朝野立委同樣是領人民納稅錢的公職人員，立法院更不能逃避於廉能政治之外，不要忘了，過去八年，除了數不清的政務官捲入弊案，更有無數 立委涉入弊案，公督盟監督朝野立委的立意完全正確，但是，方法必須更精緻，甚至更貼近「民意」，知道人民真正憤怒的是什麼，真正無法忍受的是什麼。做為公 民團體，既已站在第一線監督國會，難免得接受檢驗，期待公督盟從不甚完善的監督機制中，找到更公平、更孚眾望的評鑑標準和方法。