Clean Government Committee is a Loose Cannon: Professor Ke Must Act

Clean Government Committee is a Loose Cannon: Professor Ke Must Act
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 14, 2015

Executive Summary: Just what is the Taipei City Clean Government Committee doing? What does it want? Many people want to know. Ko Wen-che became Taipei Mayor by a landslide. We would like to believe that when he established this committee he wanted to get at the truth and uncover corruption. Unfortunately as facts now show, the committee itself has become a source of chaos, and responsible for the destruction of the rule of law. The committee itself has become a problem that must be fixed.

Full Text Below:

Just what is the Taipei City Clean Government Committee doing? What does it want? Many people want to know. Ko Wen-che became Taipei Mayor by a landslide. We would like to believe that when he established this committee he wanted to get at the truth and uncover corruption. Unfortunately as facts now show, the committee itself has become a source of chaos, and responsible for the destruction of the rule of law. The committee itself has become a problem that must be fixed.

Problem One. Its status is unclear. This must be addressed. The commission is not a statutory body. Given its name, it sounds like some sort of anti-corruption agency, like Hong Kong's Independent Commission Against Corruption. But this committee was established through administrative procedures. Its function is merely advisory. It is not a statutory body. First, it has no formal investigative powers. Second, it cannot issue orders to the municipal government. Third, it has no budget or staff. It can only operate under the administrative authority of the Taipei City Government. It can only access information from affiliated agencies of the municipal government.

The Democratic Progressive Party has long criticized the KMT government for black box operations that lack legal foundation. The "Clean Government Committee" was established without the consent of the legislature or the city council. It is not subject to public oversight. Therefore the committee itself is a black box operation. Mayor Ko says he respects the integrity of the independent investigators on the committee. That is nonsense, since the committee is not independent, and its members are not investigators.

Problem Two. The status of the members is unclear, and fails to meet basic standards. Since the commission is merely advisory in nature, it should merely advise on matters of corruption and transparent governance. Yet since its establishment, members have made no constructive suggestions. They have merely followed the mayor's orders, and latched on to the five so-called "scandals". Many members stage frequent photo ops with designated media channels. They spin the government's official data according to their own subjective perceptions. They attempt to mislead the public about the five alleged "scandals" and make them forget that the commission members are “expressly required to respect confidentiality."

The performance of the committee members has been poor. Their reports have been sketchy. Strictly speaking, they are even inferior to term papers presented by the average graduate student. Much of their terminology is inaccurate. They often resort to emotional language. They often indulge in wild speculation instead of than rigorous exposition. Most outrageous of all, they never even interviewed the accused. They merely listed their names in their report, then challenged them "take the initiative to come forward to explain" when indicted.

Since the committee wants to refer the cases to the justice system, it must of course state why. But if one examines the report, its main argument is the "inference" that the mayor held a secret meeting with the manufacturers in order to alter the contract for private advantage, therefore the Taipei City Government should refer the case to the Ministry of Justice.

The committee failed to note that this “secret meeting place” was the conference room of the Taipei City Government. Many people attended this open meeting which was held in public. What precisely makes it a "secret meeting"? Also, the Ministry of Justice is not the governmental entity the case should be referred to. The commission's actions had nothing to do with its advisory function, and everything to do with framing the Taipei City Government. It brought Ko Wen-che another step closer to the partisan political battles the people detest.

Many people have been hoping that Ko Wen-che would transcend blue vs. green partisan bickering, and introduce a breath of fresh air into Taiwan's political atmosphere. Mayor Ko Wen-che's personal style is indeed candid. He does want to create a new municipal government. Unfortunately, the status of the committee was unclear from the outset. The status of its members was also unclear. It eventually became utterly detached from its original purpose. It became what many intellectuals fear, a new generation fascist white terror black box operation.

Mayor Ko has long been willing to engage in self-examination and change. This is why many people support him. The commission is a loose cannon. Mayor Ko must be bold and decisive. He must not permit himself to be hijacked by the committee. He must ensure that the committee operates on the basis of the law, promotes clean government, and upgrades the quality of committee members. Mayor Ko must launch committee version 2.0 to correct existing mistakes. He must ensure that the committee is as honest and transparent as originally advertised.

廉委會成自走炮 柯P該斷則斷
2015年05月14日 中國時報

台北市政府廉政透明委員會到底在做什麼？又想做什麼？相信是許多民眾都深感好奇的問題。我們願意相信，當柯文哲挾其壓倒性得票率就任台北市長之初，大力推動成立這個委員會，應出於發掘真相、檢討弊案的公共善意，可惜的是，事實證明這個委員會已成為破壞法治的亂源，本身就是必須正視與改造的問題。

問題一、定位錯亂必須改正：廉政委員會不是法定機關，從名稱上來看，似乎是一個如同香港廉政公署般的肅貪機構，但這個委員會只是依行政辦法成立的委員會，基本上只具有諮詢功能，不是法定機構。一來沒有正式調查權，二來令不出市政府，三來沒有預算與助理，只能假借台北市政府的行政權柄，去向市政府所屬各機構調閱資料。

過去民進黨經常批評國民黨政府有黑機關，批判準則就是法源之有無，現在這個「廉政委員會」，既沒有經過立法院或台北市議會同意設立，也不受民意機構的監督。依此而論，確實是黑機關。柯市長曾說過他尊重廉政委員的獨立辦案，此言差矣，因為這個委員會既非獨立，更不能辦案。

問題二、委員認知錯亂，不見基本水準：廉政委員會既然只是諮詢性質，就應該謹守角色，認真針對台北市政的廉政透明事宜提出建議，但是自從委員會成立以來，未見委員會成員提出廉政的建設性意見，反而只知秉承市長之意，死咬所謂五大「弊案」。許多委員屢屢站上媒體第一線，依據個人主觀認知包裝來自政府機關的公務資料，外流給特定媒體人士，企圖誤導社會對所謂五大「弊案」的認知與態度，全然忘記委員會設置要點中明示委員「應負保密義務」。

至於廉政委員諸公表現欠佳，已具體呈現在報告中，內容品質粗糙，嚴格來講，甚至比不上一般研究生期末作業的水準，包括許多用語不夠精準、甚至經常使用情緒性的措辭，而且還有諸多推論不嚴謹的臆測論述，最誇張的就是居然沒有訪談主要當事人，只在報告公布、並且揚言移送時才放話說「歡迎當事人主動來說明」。

退一步來說，廉政委員會既然要建請移送司法，當然必須具體指出移送的理由，但是檢視其內容，主要論點卻只是「推論」市長與廠商密會後修改合約涉及圖利，因此建請台北市政府將全案移送法務部。

廉政委員會並沒有說明，為什麼這場所謂密會的地點，是在台北市政府會議室。既然是多人參加、在公開場合舉行的公開會議，為何構成「密會」？也忽略了法務部根本不是移送的受理單位。廉政委員會這些表現，當然沒有發揮應有的諮詢功能，反而陷害台北市政府於困局，更一步步把柯文哲帶到了民眾最厭惡的政治惡鬥泥淖中。

許多民眾曾經寄望柯文哲能夠打破藍綠惡鬥，給台灣政壇帶來耳目一新的面貌。回顧過去，柯文哲市長確實也秉持個人坦率風格，積極努力想要推動新市政。可惜的是，廉政委員會的布局，一開始就定位錯亂，委員們又認知錯亂，終於完全脫離了當初設置的目的，變成了許多知識分子口中的新一代法西斯白色恐怖黑機關。

柯市長一向勇於自我檢討與進化，這也是許多民眾支持他的原因。面對已經荒腔走板的廉政委員會，柯市長應該壯士斷腕，停止再被這個委員會綁架與利用。只要確立法源與定位、整合現有政風功能，並且提高廉政委員會的位階與專業素質，柯市長立即就能推出廉政委員會2.0版來矯正既有過失，從而深化標榜廉政透明的初衷。