Use Your Ballots to force the KMT to pass the Public Servants' Unaccounted For Assets Act

Use Your Ballots to force the KMT to pass the Public Servants' Unaccounted For Assets Act
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 25, 2009

The "Public Servants' Unaccounted For Assets Act" has remained stalled in the Legislative Yuan for a full year. Now suddenly, we hear it has been scheduled for consideration tomorrow. But whether it will actually become law remains uncertain.

Responsibility for failure to pass this law is rests with the KMT. The KMT is the largest party in the Legislature. It commands a supermajority. It is the ruling party. A simple law which ought to have been passed, hasn't been passed. If the responsibility is not the KMT's, whose is it?

Fine. If the KMT doesn't want it to pass, so be it. But the year-end County and Municipal Elections are coming up. The electorate has ways of dealing with the KMT. Think about it. If centrist voters amounting to 10% of the electorate support the KMT's opponents instead of the KMT, or stay away from the polls, they could conceivably cause the KMT to lose in every county and every municipality.

If the Public Servants' Unaccounted For Assets Act is not passed, we intend to remind the public to use their ballots to demand its passage come election day.

The Chen corruption and money-laundering case is a living example. Sacks of cash were piled high all over the Presidential Mansion. Yet the Chen family passes it off as "campaign contributions." The Chen family picks a few names out of hundreds or even thousands of wealthy contributors, and creates its "Great Reservoir." The Special Investigation Unit then subpoenas these alleged contributors one by one. Some of them admit having contributed money. But the vast majority deny having contributed money. Some of those who denied contributing money may have lied, But some may have contributed money to the Democratic Progressive Party, only to have it pocketed by the Chen family. Some may have been falsely accused by the Chen family. The Special Investigation Unit should send questionnaires to both parties, asking them to answer according to their consciences. As long as the Chen family refuses to spit out the truth, as long as those who contributed funds refuse to admit doing so, existing laws are powerless against both. Without the sanctions provided by a "Public Servants' Unaccounted For Assets Act," how can one possibly ensure justice?

Forget big fish like the Chen family. Even the likes of Lin Wen-yuan could buy five luxury condominiums in a single breath. Lin's payments were nearly 2 million dollars a month. When asked about the source of his financing, all he said was, "I financed it myself." This apparently marked the end of the interrogation. Is this the Ma administration's position on the law? Is this the KMT's notion of criminal justice?

In fact, the draft law under consideration by the Legislative Yuan is toothless compared to the law in other regions. In Hong Kong for example, as long as a public official's "lifestyle is inconsistent with his income" he risks conviction. Twelve years ago the Chinese mainland passed its "Public Servants' Unaccounted For Assets Act." Recently, the National People's Congress (NPC) increased the maximum sentence from five years to ten years. Moreover, the draft law provisions currently in the Legislature would apply only in the event of suspected corruption. What excuse is there for not passing such a modest law? In the absence of a "Public Servants' Unaccounted For Assets Act," dark clouds will continue shroud the peaks. In which case, why bother talking about "Sunshine Laws"?

Such laws touch upon issues of presumption of innocence and self-incrimination. But this law applies only to powerful public officials. Besides, existing asset declaration laws and campaign contribution laws already provide public officials with the means to establish their innocence. Aren't such crime-fighting mechanisms also a means of protecting oneself by establishing one's innocence? Today's society persecutes the virtuous and kowtows to the corrupt. Public officials suspected of corruption must account for their unexplained wealth. Costs should be weighed against the benefits. If laws are not passed today, tomorrow we will be confronted with more of the likes of Chen Shui-bian and Lin Wen-yuan.

The laws must include certain provisions. Campaign contribution laws must be updated. Running political parties and waging political campaigns are expensive propositions. Current limits on campaign contributions are so low as to be unrealistic. The limits should be substantially increased. We may wish to reduce the limits on contributions to individuals, while increasing the limits on contributions to political parties, Under certain circumstances we could allow political parties to collect a percentage from individual party members. This would support political parties while suppressing individual candidates. It would prevent cheating, and ensure fairness. We might even consider legal standards for the management of party assets. Having political parties operate openly would help prevent such abnormal phenomenon such as Chen Shu-bian becoming the biggest party operated corrupt enterprise.

In short, campaign contribution laws should be changed. Instead of strict limits with lax enforcement and punishment, we need generous limits with strict enforcement and punishment. Any violations would be subject to heavy penalties. The situation must not be allowed to degenerate into what we have today: contributors who deny having contributed, and recipients who cannot prove having received. A Public Servants' Unaccounted For Assets Act would make such a farce impossible. By the same token, large and illegal campaign contributions would be punished according to a "Unaccounted For Large Contributions Act."

The KMT may demonstrate indifference to calls for a "Public Servants' Unaccounted For Assets Act." But election day is here. Has it already forgotten the lesson of Miaoli?

用選票向國民黨追討「財產來源不明罪」
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.03.25 05:53 am


貪汙治罪條例增訂「公務員財產來源不明罪」，在立法院擱淺將屆一整年；據聞明天又將排定審議，但能否就此順利完成立法，仍在未定之天。

這筆帳必須算在國民黨頭上。國民黨是據有絕對多數的國會最大黨，又是執政黨；區區一個法條，該過而不過，這筆帳不找國民黨算該找誰？

沒關係，國民黨愛過不過隨便你。但隨著年底縣市長選舉接近，選民不是沒有對付國民黨的辦法。想像中，只要約有百分之十的中間選民，能因「財產來源不明罪」未立法，而從傾向支持國民黨改成支持其對手，或棄權不投票，這些中間選民一來一回，即可能教國民黨在任何縣市輸掉選舉！

倘若國民黨此番在立院再不完成立法程序，我們會為國人記得此事，將在選季開始後不斷用力提醒大家，用選票向國民黨追討「財產來源不明罪」！

扁案是個活生生血淋淋的猙獰樣板。現金堆得「全厝間」，卻諉稱皆是「政治獻金」，然後再信手從可能上百逾千的金主中選擇性地交代幾個名字，來構築其「大水庫」……。特偵組於是就扁家拋出的名單一一傳訊，其中有些人承認，卻竟然絕大多數否認；否認者中有些可能說謊，卻也可能有捐給民進黨而被扁家私吞者，甚至不排除其中亦有被扁家誣指混充者。但是，特偵組所能做的，不啻猶如送一份調查問卷請兩造各憑良心打鉤鉤，只要扁家不吐實，送錢的不承認，依現行法律就對授受巨金的雙方無可奈何。如果不用「財產來源不明罪」制裁此類個案，正義寧論，公道何在？

不說扁家這個大咖，以林文淵的角色居然也能一口氣買下五棟豪宅，每月支付近二百萬元工程款；被問及資金來源，他只答覆一句「自行籌措」，好像就將問答畫下了最後句點。這是馬政府的法律觀點嗎？這是國民黨的社會正義嗎？

其實，立院正在審議的草案，較諸他國已甚保留。以香港為例，只要公務員的「收入與生活顯不相稱」，即可問罪；而中國大陸在十二年前即有「財產來源不明罪」，最近全國人大又將最高刑期從五年提高至十年。何況，立院的草案規定只在涉及貪汙罪嫌時，始可追究財產來源。如此謹慎保守的法條，還有什麼理由不立法？而若無「財產來源不明罪」，烏雲罩頂，還談什麼「陽光法案」？

當然，此法涉及「無罪推定」及「不自證有罪或無罪」等法理爭議。但畢竟本法是用於「特別權利關係」的公職人員，何況國家原即設有財產申報及政治獻金等法制，已提供公職人員自表清白、自我保護及阻卻犯罪的機制（豈不亦有自證無罪的用意？）。在肅貪倡廉的社會法益下，命涉及貪汙罪嫌的公職人員交代其不明財產的來源，在此時此地，應是符合比較利益與比例原則的。今天不立法，明天仍將有層出迭見的「陳水扁們」和「林文淵們」！

不過，在此也要提醒須完成配套措施，比如政治獻金法等亦應翻修。政黨及選舉運作皆是花大錢的事務，現在法定的獻金額度全然低得不切實際，應當大幅放寬限額；放寬限額後，且不妨相對縮限對個人的捐獻，提高對政黨的捐獻，且可在一定條件下規定政黨可對個別黨員所收獻金抽成。養政黨，抑個人；可以防弊，亦符公道。此外，甚至可考慮立法規範政黨經營「黨產」，公開正當操作，庶免形成陳水扁一人成為最大「黨營貪腐事業」的畸形異象。

總之，如政治獻金法等，應當從現在的「限制嚴，執法及懲罰輕」，改變成「限制寬，執法及懲罰重」；也就是對授受雙方皆要鬆綁，但違法即予重罰，絕不能鬧成如今這般收者說有、送者卻不敢認的荒唐景象。倘送者不認，收者又不能證實，那就涉嫌「財產來源不明罪」；同理，倘若出現違法巨量獻金，何妨亦以「違法巨量獻金動機不明罪」論處。

國民黨，你儘管無動於衷把「財產來源不明罪」擱著吧。選舉到了，苗栗的教訓你還記得嗎？