Anonymous letters and media judgments
Q: Perhaps the biggest current problem is that in most people's minds there are doubts about the credibility of units responsible for fighting corruption, including the prosecutors, the Bureau of Investigation and the anti-corruption departments.
With this kind of general impression, how can these groups get the trust they need to fight corruption?
A: I believe that these kind of criticisms aren't entirely fair. For instance, the Bureau of Investigation is responsible for investigating corruption, drugs, economic crimes, and national security related crimes. When it makes a big bust in these areas, people think that this is to be expected. But as soon as there is a conduct and discipline problem with one or two investigators, everybody blames the Bureau of Investigation. Likewise, prosecutors and judges for the most part have great personal integrity. At the Ministry of Justice we pay a lot of attention to the personal integrity of prosecutors. And many times, on our own accord, we have sent prosecutors who have been derelict in performing their duties to the Control Yuan or the Committee on the Discipline of Public Functionaries or have even prosecuted them.
As for the impression that most people have that "there is a lot of talk about weeding out corruption but little action," I think the media is partly responsible--because a case creates a sensation when it is reported, to the point where the media makes a judgment beforehand. The public is influenced by the media and believes that the person is definitely guilty. Then, after a true examination, the evidence may be discovered to be insufficient for a conviction. At this point, everyone feels that something is definitely amiss, that "officials are pulling strings." It isn't fair.
Then there are those who think that we only get moving after the media spotlights a case of corruption. But this is unfair too.
For example, recently the newspapers have been making a lot of a case involving the Directorate General of Telecommunications. The Bureau of Investigation has already been quietly investigating for more than a year, but because the case is complicated and there are 20 some boxes of information, there has not yet been a concrete result. And under the principal of "not making investigations public," we haven't revealed any of this to the outside. There are many cases like this that are being watched closely. Because the Ministry of Justice stresses the principal of "not wronging a good man and not missing a bad guy," it cannot become cruel and unjust itself in its zeal to weed out corruption. Doing so would be of no use to the entire justice system.
Besides bribery, the discrediting of people with anonymous letters is also commonplace in this society. And so, of the anonymous letters received by anti-corruption departments, many of them are unfounded or are too general and sweeping to provide leads.
In the past, we described this situation to legislators and they didn't believe us. Recently, legislators Wang Shih-hsiung and Han Kuo-yu have established an "Anti Corruption League" to gather information from people about corruption. Legislator Wang has said that he himself has been frustrated by the great number of unsubstantiated, anonymous letters. It is true that many people want to inform against others, but at the very least those coming forward should present concrete evidence so investigators have somewhere to start.
Of course, officials will pull strings to help each other and will try to cover up, keeping mistakes "in the family." This is only natural. Thus, all anticorruption personnel who know of wrongdoing involving or being covered up by their superiors can go straight to the anti-corruption department. This design is aimed at preventing agency heads from using their positions for private gain or from covering up wrongdoing by underlings. Currently there it no shortage of these kinds of reports, and we are trying to get to the bottom of each of them as quickly as possible.
The power of money
Q: The public is particularly concerned that corruption today is not merely the low-level corruption of the past. The corruption today is high-level linkage of money with government power and exchanging of favors. This is very different from the past.
A: I think that for thousands of years, the reasons for and forms of corruption haven't differed much. It's just as society has modernized, the faces of corruption have grown more diverse. We too have considered the high-level linkage of money with government power and the exchanging of favors that you have mentioned. To attack these problems we have included illegal lobbying, the giving of gifts and business socializing in the scope of this anti-corruption plan. For example, if a public servant has received a gift or has been wined and dined at an amount that goes over the given limit, this public servant will have to report it to his superior to prevent corruption.
Money's influence in government only operates in these few ways. They may not be one and the same thing as corruption, but they still have a bad influence on the social and political environment. It can at least be said that they provide a breeding ground for corruption.
By requesting that public servants declare all presents over a certain value, you protect public servants, preventing them from receiving expensive gifts that are difficult to refuse, the receipt of which could implicate them in later wrongdoing. And these regulations suit as well the heads of government agencies. They're not just for run-of-the-mill public servants. Of course, some people will intentionally not declare them, or make inaccurate or incomplete declarations. It's just the same with how public servants declare their property. If they are caught declaring incorrectly, they will be punished. It's most important that norms are clearly set out so that there is a kind of "legal certainty." When a public servant violates these norms, he will have a sense himself that he has violated the law.
Up against the clock
Q: In this campaign to root out corruption, are you under any pressure? Are you preparing yourself to step down from your position because of it?
A: Actually, it's quite all right. There is no one trying to prevent me from doing it. And the biggest criticisms among the public and officials are that we have gone too far. Many want us to cut out the portions of the campaign about "the culture of bribery." And we don't want to try to smash long established social courtesies in one fell swoop and thereby have our efforts die before they get off the ground, and so we are moving slowly, a step at a time. In fighting corruption, three things are essential: determination, determination and determination.
Of course, fighting corruption doesn't help you to curry favor with people in government, but when the public so hopes that the conduct of government officials will be set right, the Ministry of Justice is duty bound to pursue justice without looking back.
Q: How can you assess the administrative results of this anti-corruption campaign? Are there any fixed goals, such as increasing the conviction rate in corruption cases by X amount?
A: That's very difficult. There's no way of forecasting that kind of thing. This isn't like catching fish, where you've just got to cast a net and they'll get caught in it. And if you want to push forward anti-corruption measures, you need coordinated effort from various groups. For example, for examining corruption involving police and taxes, you need to coordinate with the National Police Administration of the Ministry of the Interior and with tax agencies under the Ministry of Finance. Efforts to curb gift giving and banquets have to be taken by all departments. We can't simply rely on the efforts of the Ministry of Justice.
Many people hope that the government will act in a sweeping manner to root out corruption. But how do you really shake people up and get quick results? Will people feel satisfied only after a few ministers or department heads are locked up? In administering the law you've got to maintain a clear head; you can't get emotional. If they're corrupt, you've got to go after them. If not, you've got to clear their names. Otherwise, by tarnishing the reputation of good people, you'll destroy morale in the civil service.
Of couise, we also know that we are competing with time. The people are anxious for results and have no patience with listening to theory. These kind of sentiments we completely understand, and they're one of the reasons we think anti-corruption work is so urgent.
[Picture Caption]
p.14
The "Taking the Knife to Corruption" campaign has attracted widespread attention. Justice Minister Ma Ying-jeou also feels a deep responsibility. (photo by Liu Wei-chun)
p.16
These extravagant election dinners, and all the waste that they entail, are gradually going the way of the dinosaurs. (photo by Pu Hua-chih)
p.18
Before the recent fervor for rooting out corruption, the Bureau of Investigation had already been actively pursuing leads and gathering information. (photo by Wang Hsing-tien)
@List.jpg?w=522&h=410&mode=crop&format=webp&quality=80)
@List.jpg?w=522&h=410&mode=crop&format=webp&quality=80)
