Use the Internet to Fight Local Corruption

Use the Internet to Fight Local Corruption
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 9, 2012

Summary: Those parts of Taiwan and Fujian under Republic of China jurisdiction include only 22 counties and municipalities. Yet on a single day, two county chiefs were indicted for corruption. One was indicted over a procurement scandal. One was arrested for demanding bribes on a public works project. A whole slew of civil servants, academics, experts, and relatives were dragged down with them. Taxpayers watched as these impeccably groomed members of the ruling nomenklatura negotiated under the table deals. How can they not be disappointed in the legal system? How can they not be pessimistic watching naked greed in action? How can they not seek antidotes?

Full Text below:

Those parts of Taiwan and Fujian under Republic of China jurisdiction include only 22 counties and municipalities. Yet on a single day, two county chiefs were indicted for corruption. One was indicted over a procurement scandal. One was arrested for demanding bribes on a public works project. A whole slew of civil servants, academics, experts, and relatives were dragged down with them. Taxpayers watched as these impeccably groomed members of the ruling nomenklatura negotiated under the table deals. How can they not be disappointed in the legal system? How can they not be pessimistic watching naked greed in action? How can they not seek antidotes?

The Republic of China government implemented local autonomy on Taiwan 60 years ago. County and municipal level governments underwent ruling party changes long ago. Within the system we have parliamentary checks and balances. Without the system we have an aggressive media. We have intellectuals concerned about public affairs. We have public interest groups and self-help groups with a high degree of initiative. All these provide checks and balances on government. The executive power is subject to these constraints. County chiefs, city mayors, and other authorities should find embezzlement difficult. But if we local self-government up close and personal, we discover to our dismay that the checks and balances are hollow, and that oversight is not working. Special political and economic interests persist in wanton disregard of the law, and do whatever they wish.

Within the system, county councils and city councils ought to provide effective checks and balances. County councils and city councils have the authority to approve or disapprove budgets. They have the authority to prevent executive waste and abuse of power. They are in a position to expose government abuse of power. They are in a position to challenge the government on behalf of the taxpayers, in accord with the public interest. But in practice these checks and balances have become the very means by which county councils and city council-based special interest groups divvy up the loot. County councils and city councils have their angles. They take advantage of construction projects to distribute political pork. They make sweetheart deals with lobbyists. Businessmen go along to get along with these county councils and city councils. Conversely, businessmen who refuse to play ball find it impossible to receive fair treatment during the bidding process. The result is the hollowing out of parliamentary checks and balances, which have become mere show.

Without the system, the media were once the eyes and ears of the citizens. They provided oversight on the citizens' behalf. They provided a local public affairs forum. But the rise of the Internet has provided us with free information. The traditional media is operating at a loss. It is scaling back operations. It is giving up on the provision of serious content. Reporters seldom cover county council and city council budget reviews. The media seldom reports on such matters. If citizens or citizens groups fail to audit these proceedings, government budgets and their contents will remain unknown. They will be hidden from the light of day. They will become opportunities for government business collusion.

The Government has for sure enacted procurement laws. Tender offers over a certain amount must be posted on the Internet. Major tender offers must be recorded on video. But websites are usually designed for bidding vendors, not the average citizen. The videos of the bidding procedures are merely for backup. They are not made public. They contribute nothing to transparency. From a practical perspective, the higher the visibility, the stricter the constraints. The bidding process should be webcast live, in audio and video formats. Every citizen should be able to listen or watch in real time. The effect would be more powerful than having the Director of the Government Ethics Office in attendance.

Modern digital technology is advanced. Advanced democracies already use digital technology to make the vast amounts of data gathered by the government and the business community available. This promotes open and transparent government. On Taiwan all levels of government use public funds to collect all sorts of raw data. This process must be made as open as possible. It must be made convenient for taxpayers to use. For example, the more that environmental data is made available to public interest groups, the more environmentalists will be able to use the data to protect the environment. The more that police departments provide law enforcement and traffic data, the easier it will be for citizens to avoid violating county and municipal laws.

Current county chiefs and city mayors stand on the front lines. They deal with public opinion. They must remain close to the people. They are surrounded by council factions, special interest groups, ward heelers, wealthy king-makers, and ordinary voters. As a result many decisions involve political risks. The county chiefs and city mayors can use the Internet to make available mountains of administrative data. Increased transparency will enable citizen oversight. It may hinder the officals' own operations. But it would be backed by a majority of the public. It would constrain those tempted to abuse their privileged status. In short, an open and transparent system is more secure than a simple wolf pack.

During an economic downturn, the government is the marketplace's biggest customer. Putting tender offers on the Internet is merely one small step. The Internet Age will increase transparency. All manufacturers who make tender offers must make their information available. They must publish the amount of their tender offers. They must publish their contributions to political parties and elected officials. The raw data must be disclosed. This data must be made available to county chiefs and city mayors. It must be cross-checked against the county chiefs' and county councilors' political contributions and other data. Only then can we ensure market order and fair competition.

Local governments are responsible for local construction projects. These pertain to ordinary folk. There is little need for secrecy. Limiting access to this information merely creates a hotbed of corruption. The iron rule for anti-corruption is openness and transparency. Sunshine is the best antidote to corruption. The Internet provides that sunshine. Digital technology provides the brightest source of light. The government must make this data as open and available as possible. Tender offers must be webcast in real time. The names of the bidders must be made public. The winning bidder must be made public. The names of political contributors to county chief and city mayor elections must be made public. Counties chiefs, city mayors, and ordinary citizens must be able go online and view the information. In sum, the greater the visibility, the greater assurance of fairness.

用網路陽光防治地方貪腐
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.12.09

中華民國治下的台閩地區只有二十二位縣市長，
一日之內竟有兩名縣長因貪腐案涉訟；一因採購弊案被起訴，一因工程索賄弊案遭收押，還牽拖出一票公務員、學者專家、親戚同陷訟累。納稅人看著這些平日衣冠楚楚的權貴人物，暗室交易時竟如此沆瀣一氣，豈能不對現有法制失望，甚至對好貪的人性悲觀，又豈能不亟思有以救治。

台灣實施地方自治六十年，縣市層級早已實現政黨輪政，體制內有議會制衡，體制外有活躍的媒體、關心公眾事務的知識分子、各種公益團體及機動性高的自救型利益團體，均能監督制衡政府；行政權既受如此制約，掌權的縣市長和機關主管理應難以勾串貪墨。可是細察地方自治實務，卻發現制衡空洞、監督失焦，政經利益共生體仍常無視法紀而為所欲為。

體制面，縣市議會應是監督制衡政府最有力的機構，議會手握預算審查權，可防止行政濫權和浪費，能揭發政府顢頇，代表納稅人問政，行符合公益之事。但實際操作下來，原有制衡功能設計，竟變成議會各種利益次團體分贓的憑藉；縣市政府為求行事便宜，用分配工程預算、釋放政策利多、接受遊說關說等工具妥協，使依附議會主流勢力的商人有糖吃；反之，未附從的公司行號很難有公平競標機會。以致議會制衡空洞化，幾成秀場。

體制外，媒體原是縣市公民的眼睛，可代位監看政府運作，扮演地方公共事務論壇角色。可是網路崛起後，充斥免費信息，傳媒原有的營運利基流失，乃縮減版面，放棄若干嚴肅內容。今天縣市議會審查預算，已少見記者株守聽審，媒體上幾乎看不到相關訊息。公民或團體若不進議場旁聽，亦無從得知公部門預算科目、經費與實質內容，陽光照不到的地方，最容易成為地方政經特權組合的俎上肉。

政府確實頒行了採購法，一定金額以上標案都要上網公開，重大標案開標時會錄音錄影。可是網站設計以參與競標廠商為對象，非為一般公民能輕鬆讀懂而設想；開標現場的錄音錄影，只是備用檔案，並不公開，難謂透明。從務實的觀點而言，有愈多雙眼睛看，便愈有制約的力量，開標影音若上網轉播實況，不特定公民能即時觀察，會比政風室主任臨場坐鎮，更有震懾威力。

現代數位科技進步，民主先進國家已在運用數位技術開放政府和工商界所蒐集的龐大數據，推動公開透明的陽光政府機制。台灣各級政府用公帑蒐集的各類原始數據，理應盡可能公開，方便所有納稅人使用；譬如環保數據公布得愈多，民間公益團體、環保達人必更能發揚才智，共維生態安全。警察局公開的治安、交通數據愈多，縣市公民會更懂得趨吉避凶。

當下的縣市長既站在面對民意的第一線，當然要有融入群眾的親和力；又置身於議會派系、利益團體、抬轎樁腳、政治金主、投票選民的包圍下，故而，很多決策都伴隨風險。縣市長如能借助網路，大量公開行政數據，用透明化導入公民監督機制，雖可能妨礙自己施展，但背靠廣大公民，必能有力約束欲行險謀求特權者的脅制；也就是說，公開透明的機制，比僅憑一己之力周旋於狼群間，安全得多。

不景氣的時候，政府是市場最大宗生意來源，現行把標案公開上網，只是一小步；網路時代，需加速加大公開透明的步伐，凡承做政府標案的廠商均應公開其負責人資料，公布得標件數金額，公開歷來對政黨和民選公職人員的捐獻。唯有公開原始數據，讓這些數據接受與縣市長、縣市議員公布的政治獻金等其他數據交叉比對，才能規範市場公平競爭秩序。

地方政府業務不外基層建設、庶民生活，幾無保密必要，只讓信息在小範圍內公開，反成貪腐淵藪。防貪鐵律就是公開透明，讓陽光當防腐劑；網路陽光，則是數位科技提供的最佳光源。政府應考慮盡量公開各項數據資料，在網路上實況轉播開標，公開審標人員名單，公開得標廠商負責人名字，公開縣市長、議員政治獻金名單，讓縣市公民都能上網檢視。總而言之，愈多眼睛看到的事，愈禁得起公正考驗。