|
Desire to end corruption just words:
analysts
By Ko Shu-ling
Staff Reporter
Sunday, Aug 01, 2010, Page 3
“It is politically motivated and aims to boost the KMT’s [Chinese Nationalist
Party] momentum in the November elections.”－Kao Yung-cheng, Judicial Reform
Foundation executive director
Although President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) deserves recognition
for his ostensible desire to address government corruption, his recent proposal
to establish an anti-corruption commission was more talk than action, analysts
said.
Ma announced on July 20 that it was necessary to establish a commission against
corruption following a recent series of corruption cases, including a scandal
involving judges.
Ma said the commission would be established under the Ministry of Justice,
rather than being independent. Taiwan would not copy the approach of Hong Kong
or Singapore, where the units were established under the chief executive or
prime minister, Ma said, adding that its unique feature would be to specialize
in fighting graft.
Ma’s decision was an apparent policy U-turn as his party blocked a similar
proposal more than 170 times in the legislature when the Democratic Progressive
Party was in power.
Ma said he made the decision for three reasons. First was the need to buttress
government efforts to combat corruption; second was public expectations; and
third was the need to conform to international standards.
Judicial Reform Foundation executive director Kao Yung-cheng (高涌誠) said no one
would oppose combating corruption, but Ma’s proposal was more a political
gesture.
“It is politically motivated and aims to boost the KMT’s [Chinese Nationalist
Party] momentum in the November elections,” he said.
Realizing the corruption scandal involving High Court judges dealt a significant
blow to judicial credibility, Kao said, Ma knows he must act quickly lest the
public lose its trust in the judiciary and police.
Kao said Ma’s political gesture was understandable, but what he intended to do
was not enough.
If Ma was serious about rooting out graft, Kao said he should have either
expanded the Special Investigation Panel (SIP) under the Supreme Prosecutors’
Office, or place the proposed anti-corruption commission under the SIP.
Ma should also consider establishing the unit under the Presidential Office or
the Executive Yuan, he said.
“What really matters is whether the president is determined to combat graft,” he
said. “I personally don’t think he is because he is reluctant to change the
government structure to accommodate the new commission.”
Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) has ruled out the possibility of setting up the
proposed unit under the Presidential Office or Executive Yuan, saying it was
“constitutionally unfeasible.” He said the “current conditions” were not right
for amending the Constitution or Cabinet organizational rules to establish the
planned commission as an independent body.
Aside from establishing the unit, Kao said there were two things the
administration should do. First is that the administration must consider
lightening the sentence for graft so judges are more inclined to convict more
corrupt civil servants.
As the law stands, public servants found guilty of embezzling more than
NT$50,000 (US$1,560) are subject to a minimum sentence of 10 years and can be
fined up to NT$100 million, under the Anti-Corruption Act (貪汙治罪條例).
“It’s harsher than the 10 or 12-year sentence for killing someone,” he said. “An
effective piece of legislation is more important than a stringent one.”
The second is that the administration must consider abolishing Article 6 of the
act, which Kao said had a very vague definition of the civil servants’ “desire
to make profit.” Not only were few public servants were convicted of corruption
under this provision, but the clause also encouraged them to be passive on the
job, Kao said.
Lin Ming-hsin (林明昕), a law professor at National Taiwan University, said it was
unnecessary to establish an anti-corruption commission because many government
agencies are in charge of combating graft. They included the government ethics
department, the Investigation Bureau, district courts and Control Yuan, he said.
“Now they want to add another one,” he said. “I wonder how much more effective
it would be than the existing agencies. I also want to know who would
investigate corrupt anti-corruption commission members.”
Lin said since the proposed commission was unnecessary, he did not think it
mattered whether it should be established as an independent body and answer only
to the president or premier.
Lin said he realized Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption was
established under the chief executive and Singapore’s Anti-Corruption Bureau
under the prime minister.
“But Singapore also had caning, do we also want it here?” he asked. “If we fear
that the new commission would become an ungovernable beast, it might be a better
idea to set it up as a toothless tiger.”
Lin, however, declined to connect the anti-corruption commission with the
November elections, saying elections were frequent in Taiwan.
Max Huang (黃國昌), an assistant research fellow of law at Academia Sinica, said
Ma’s proposal was nothing but a show aimed at deflecting public pressure.
“He totally missed the mark,” Huang said. “Fighting corruption is just part of
the judicial reform and corrupt judges are merely one of the many problems of
the judiciary.”
If Ma was serious about judicial reform, Huang said Ma should have looked at the
bigger picture, identified the problems and “suited the remedy to the disease.”
Huang said among the fundamental problems of the judiciary was the recruitment
of judges, adding that it was “stupid” to select them through examinations.
While it would make more sense to hire outstanding lawmakers, prosecutors or law
professors to be judges, Huang said judges must be civil servants.
“What we end up with is a bunch of college graduates who are good at memorizing
and passing exams, but what we really need is someone who has social and
practical legal experience,” he said. “Men who are still wet behind the ears
preside over a criminal court to give out a life-or-death sentence.”
Huang lamented the stagnation of judicial reform, saying the employment of
judges remained unchanged over the past decade in the wake of the 1999 National
Conference on Judicial Reform.
Huang said the head of the Judicial Yuan and Ma should be held responsible for
the delay of judicial reform. Although they appeared to have the desire to push
reform, their words speak louder than their actions, he said.
As Ma has called for the passage of a law for judges, Huang said he suspected
the legislature would approve the bill, but he would like to see how the law was
enacted and whether Ma was serious about passing the law this time around.
Huang said that while he did not expect the selection process for judges to
change any time soon, he would like to see the judges’ law require that outside
representatives sit on the personnel committee and offer incentives to
non-public servants to become judges.
The transfer and promotion of judges should be fair and open, he said, although
he did not think promotion should exist at all because all judges should deem
their job as a sacred mission.
Bad judges should be weeded out, Huang said. He has seen judges showing up late
and being impatient or even mean to prosecutors or the accused, he said, but
only a few judges were disciplined for any misconduct during the past decade.
|
