|
EDITORIAL: AAC still
more bark than bite
The Agency Against Corruption (AAC) turns one year old today and is celebrating
the moment by hosting a running event at the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall. One
hopes there is no significance in the agency encouraging people to run.
There is certainly no link between the agency’s goals and hosting this type of
sporting event, as many critics have pointed out. They would like to see
something like a score card of the agency’s achievements so far. The agency
would not likely rack up a great total, given that the biggest corruption
scandal in recent years only came to light after one of those allegedly involved
in the corruption went to the media, leaving the agency looking clueless.
So, what exactly has the agency achieved?
In August last year, it made headlines after legislators accused it of targeting
them for carrying out their duty to lobby on behalf of their constituents.
Little more was heard on this front. The agency also launched an investigation
of the director of the Keelung Customs Office along with six customs officials
on suspicion of profiteering.
In November, it arrested two National Palace Museum employees on suspicion of
stealing digital images of museum artifacts and selling them to Chinese
companies.
Then, in May, it announced an investigation into a 2007 public bid that Taiwan
Power Co held for the construction of parts of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in
Gongliao District (貢寮), New Taipei City (新北市), that possibly violated the
Government Procurement Act (政府採購法).
Later that month it arrested 10 police officers from different units on
suspicion of fabricating documents for car accidents to defraud insurance
companies.
The agency also drew complaints after it distributed a pamphlet to public school
teachers that included a warning not to attend graduation banquets over concerns
that a conflict of interest could emerge.
Last month it said Chu Shao-hua (朱少華), then-chairman of state-run oil refiner
CPC Corp, Taiwan, was being investigated for corruption over a suspicious
relationship with a private contractor. A few days later, the Ministry of
Economic Affairs said Chu was retiring at the end of the month.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) announced the formation of the agency last year
after a major scandal involving several High Court judges shook the public’s
confidence in the judiciary and finally forced both Ma’s and the Chinese
Nationalist Party’s (KMT) hands after years of blocking previous attempts to
establish such an institution. Ma maintained that the very formation of the
agency would help deter public servants from engaging in corrupt activities.
Unfortunately, he was not being fatuous.
However, since the agency does not have the authority to carry out
investigations against senior government bureaus or officials and because it
falls under the purview of the Ministry of Justice, there have been many
concerns that it would not be as effective as Hong Kong’s Independent Commission
Against Corruption, or Singapore’s Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. There
were also fears that the agency would simply become, as one commentator put it,
the “AADPPC,” or the Agency Against Democratic Progressive Party Corruption.
Luckily, that has not proven to be the case, but the scandal involving former
Executive Yuan secretary-general Lin Yi-shih (林益世) highlights the gaps in the
agency’s brief.
After each major corruption scandal, Ma and his team — and the rest of the
nation — have expressed shock and horror, but then went back to business as
usual. The agency needs more teeth and if the Executive Yuan is not willing to
add them, then legislators must take it upon themselves to do so. It is not
possible to completely eliminate corruption, but a stronger agency could do a
better job of digging up dirt and cleaning up the government. The nation
deserves nothing less.
|
