|
Lawmakers reckless,
protecting own backs
By Lu Ying-chieh 盧映潔
The recent amendment to the Accounting Act (會計法) has caused widespread anger
across the nation.
Initially, people were angry because the changes to the act meant that an
elected representative caught misusing public funds could dodge criminal
liability as outlined in the Anti-Corruption Act (貪污治罪條例).
Subsequently, the anger focused on the omission of a Chinese character in the
amendment to specify teaching staff. This created a situation where it was not
clear whether the amended legislation would exempt academics from liability.
Regardless of whether the causes for public outrage were the result of the
machinations of certain individuals, there are still a number of aspects of the
entire amendment process that are both suspicious and difficult to accept.
First, to treat people differently on the basis of their status is a serious
violation of the principle of equality.
That is, even though elected representatives caught abusing public funds can no
longer be held liable for criminal prosecution for corruption, other public
servants, such as academics and researchers, are not exempt from criminal
liability for the same actions.
The point is that no individual should be able to misuse funds from the national
coffers at the expense of taxpayers.
As such, the latest amendment is clearly biased in favor of elected
representatives.
Second, a distinction seems to have been made about whether individuals are
criminally liable, depending on when their actions were discovered, with late
2010 being the cut-off point.
This has seriously damaged the public’s belief in the ability of the Criminal
Code to uphold justice.
Prior to that time, elected representatives caught misappropriating public funds
were not prosecuted for corruption; after that date, they were.
How can the same action — using public money for private ends — be considered
perfectly legal before the end of 2010, and yet be transformed, overnight, into
the contemptible act of corruption?
Finally, to use stipulations within the Accounting Act to remove criminal
liability for corruption is to confuse the scope of different pieces of
legislation.
The Accounting Act should be limited to regulations related to accounting
matters, and the clauses therein should not have anything to do with deciding
the criminal liability of individuals.
Whether or not an individual should be held criminally liable depends on the
interpretation of criminal law.
The Accounting Act, the Criminal Code and the Anti-Corruption Act deal with
entirely different matters.
How can our lawmakers confuse the scope of different pieces of legislation and
use clauses in the Accounting Act to remove criminal liability?
The way the lawmakers create legislation is reckless.
Not only do they lack professionalism, they make no effort to hide the fact that
they are protecting their own interests.
It makes it almost impossible to know how to help students make sense of our
legal system.
Lu Ying-chieh is a professor of law at National Chung Cheng University.
Translated by Paul Cooper
|
