"Taking the Knife to Corruption." a Race Against TimeAn Interview with Minister of Justice Ma Ying-jeou

Q: Recently there have been quite a few corruption cases in the public spotlight. The average citizen has a feeling that the government is in decline. Do you have the same feeling? Do you feel that if this corruption is not cut at the roots, it could really threaten to topple the ruling party?

A: I have the same feelings about this decline, but I believe that these anti-corruption measures should not only be taken from the standpoint of preventing the ruling party from falling out of power. This isn't the most important consideration What's most important is that corruption will threaten government credibility. It gravely threatens the people's confidence in the government. The government ought to provide public services. If the public now feels that these services "won't be done without bribes," what an impact this will have! Of course, it's not that every official is corrupt, but if only a small number of officials who come into contact with the public are, by word of mouth people will come to feel that the government is rife with corruption.

Anti-corruption measures need teeth

As a result, at the cabinet's first meeting after being appointed, "incorruptibility and ability" were adopted as the politics in the running of the government. At this time, the Ministry of Justice brought forth an anti-corruption plan with four major aims: the first was using harsher laws so people wouldn't dare to be corrupt; the second was making people unable to be corrupt by relying on more thorough preventive measures; the next was to cultivate public servants' incorruptibility and a sense of shame about corruption so they wouldn't be willing to be corrupt; and finally there was giving public servants sufficient salaries so they have no need to be corrupt.

Q: You mentioned the goal of making people not dare to be corrupt, but good laws without enforcement, without judgments that provide a warning, won't have the desired effect. Right now the public is greatly concerned that although there are many reports of possible corruption, few people go to jail. What's the ratio?

A: This is indeed a problem. Statistically speaking, every year there are about 300 cases of corruption and malfeasance prosecuted, and only a hundred plus, less than half, get guilty verdicts.

This is because corrupt behavior is by its very nature largely hidden. If one side is willing to give the bribe and the other willing to take it, there's no particular victim to come forth and present evidence. Particularly for group corruption, everyone is in the same boat, and the participants take care of each other. Unless there is infighting or problems caused by an uneven split of the take, such cases are unlikely to be exposed and attract attention. Hence, it's extremely difficult to get evidence.

And in Hongkong and Singapore, where anticorruption measures are successful, the agencies fighting corruption have great power. They have the right to search, to detain and seize, to bug and even to arrest. This is great power. Currently, we have only 500 prosecutors with this kind of authority, and granting this kind of power can have a great impact on the people's freedom and individuals' rights. In exercising power, one has got to be extremely prudent.

There's another aspect. In Hongkong and Singapore part of the burden of proof has been shifted onto those accused of corruption There is an important principle called "presumption of innocence," which means that you are innocent unless proven guilty. But in Hongkong and Singapore for crimes of corruption it's the reverse. The prosecutors can determine guilt from a suspicious entry in a ledger that cannot be completely explained. This gives the investigating officials a sharp weapon, reducing much of the difficulty and responsibility in gathering evidence.

Currently, we're not provided with any of these sharp weapons for digging out corruption and malfeasance. Since it's difficult to get thorough evidence, the legal authorities are more careful about what cases they prosecute, and there are more not-guilty verdicts. To change this environment not only requires a firm resolve about weeding out corruption but also an overhaul of current law.

Turning oneself in to avoid prosecution

This time around we have made a few minor, less controversial revisions. For example, currently those who bribe officials are only guilty of a crime if they have bribed with the intent that the official do something he shouldn't. If they bribe without this intent, they are not breaking the law.

For instance, if a peddler legally applies for a license and then gives money under the table to the government official, he's just hoping that the application will be handled a little faster. In the past, what the peddler did wouldn't have been considered illegal; with these new rules, it will be.

In the past, "bribing without the intent of breaking the law" was not considered breaking the law. The hope was that people would be more willing to come forward with evidence. But as it turned out, few bribers came forward with evidence about corruption. So our thinking is, wouldn't it be better to consider this behavior as a kind of crime but to exempt from prosecution those coming forward, not even making note of it on their record. In this way, those giving the bribes will be under a new kind of pressure: unless they report that an official accepted a bribe, they will be subject to prosecution.

As for giving oneself up to avoid prosecution, we have discovered that collective corruption is most severe. This kind of corruption is fairly invisible and highly contagious. In some departments, newcomers will be pressured to engage in the same corruption, and once everyone has "greased their palms," they'll have a tacit understanding that pockets are padded.

With this collective corruption, if no one comes forward, it will be extremely difficult for the investigatory agencies to gather evidence. You've got to provide some incentives for those receiving the bribes to come forward, allowing them at set times, say within six months, to take the money they have earned because of this corruption to prosecutors and provide information about others involved. If this information allows agents to uncover an entire operation of collective corruption, then the informer could be free from prosecution. What we're emphasizing this time is that to fight corruption we don't necessarily need heavy penalties; what's most important is that we can discover it.

What's more, certain public servants who come in frequent contact with the general public have the greatest chances of going corrupt. In order to concentrate firepower, this campaign against corruption has set clearly ordered priorities, including the judiciary and departments under the Ministry of Justice itself, as well as major construction projects, major purchasing units, the police, tax officials, customs agents, and building regulators. Some ten categories are being given priority.

Some say that these are only small fry, but whether big or small, corruption is corruption. The time spent on a major case is very long, and the fact is that petty corruption is what painfully hurts those who live from hand to mouth: it especially cannot be overlooked.

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）

Corruption without bribes?

Q: In the case of bribing without the intent of breaking the law--say when extra money is given under the table to a chief surgeon before an operation--if it's given, it's given. No one is going to go and report it. Such an operation represents an unusual event in one's life, but some people frequently have to give such bribes. For example, customs agents at fixed times have to give customs officials "expediting money." This relates to their business. Wouldn't not paying just make future business unsuccessful? Who would want to take such a risk?

A: Of course, the suggestions of the anticorruption campaign have got to be combined with the reform campaign underway in the Executive Yuan. The responsibilities can't all be dumped on citizens who give bribes. The government itself has got to raise its efficiency. For example, if goods have to take a long time to get official approval, this may mean that the routing system for getting approval isn't good. We've got to make improvements, which is to say to raise efficiency and improve attitudes about service. These have got to be combined with anti-corruption efforts. We can't make a division between "clean" and "able" government.

To put it another way, the giving of bribes and "business entertaining" are hotbeds for the fostering of corruption. There should be forceful efforts taken to eliminate these. You cannot say that because the government has not yet completed its administrative reforms, we will permit citizens "out of practical necessity" to bribe officials. To say this doesn't make any sense. We can't, on the one hand, request that our Ministry of Justice take out its machetes and hack away at corruption, while, on the other, selectively tolerate practices that everyone agrees are disgusting.

Q: You just pointed out tt the difficulty in collecting evidence was one of the blind spots in punishing corruption in Taiwan. Can we be like Hongkong and Singapore and turn the burder of proof to the accused?

A: This would require revising legal procedures involved in criminal law, and that is the responsibility of the Judicial Yuan, not the Ministry of Justice. The effects of such a change would be broad, and it would only be possible if there was a collective understanding between us and the Judicial Yuan. We have already been soliciting the opinions of all sides, and we ought soon to reach a conclusion.

Of course, many people hope that Taiwan immediately adopts such "convenient" laws so we can forcefully wipe out corruption. This kind of strong public opinion can be considered a basis for reforming the law. But any kind of public policy should require two kinds of considerations. Besides public sentiment, there should also be judgment based on professional knowledge, which aims to understand if this kind of operation will achieve the desired results. What kind of impact will it have on the present system? Currently we are still making these assessments, and we have not yet rejected the option of implementing this kind of legal reform.

Legal reforms would have to be passed by the Legislative Yuan, but with the current climate there, an uncontroversial revision could take a year to get through. Who knows how long a highly controversial law would take to pass? For instance, the Ministry of Justice proposed "Criminal Law Revisions" three and a half years ago; now it is still frozen in the gridlock of the Legislative Yuan. This cannot be overlooked.

These extravagant election dinners, and all the waste that they entail, are gradually going the way of the dinosaurs. （photo by Pu Hua-chih）

An ICAC in Taiwan

Q: Most people believe that the success of the Hongkong and Singapore anti-corruption mea-sures are in part because of their special anticorruption commissions. Could we also establish an anti-corruption commission?

A: Before 1974, the anti-corruption efforts in Hongkong were handled by the police, but then it was discovered that there was extreme corruption and malfeasance within the police department itself, making anti-corruption measures ineffectual. As a result, an Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) was established. This makes the background of the situation in Hongkong different than here.

According to my understanding, there are more than 1200 people in the ICAC in Hong kong. Among these, 70 percent come from among the people and the remaining 30 percent come from other government agencies. Hongkong has a population of only 6 million. With our 20 million people, how big an anti-corruption commission would we need?

And currently, besides prosecuting and investigatory units, there are also the 1100 units responsible for government conduct and discipline (which were previously known as the second division of personnel departments and are now known as anti-corruption departments) doing anticorruption work in this country. These employ more than 4000 people and are attached to every government unit. Previously, one third of the leads for the cases investigated by the Bureau of Investigation were provided by these anti-corruption departments. If an independent anti-corruption commission was formed, what would happen to the people employed in these anti-corruption departments?

And establishing a new commission would require another extended legislative process. After the bill was passed, the Examination Yuan would have to make a test to find qualified personnel, because every public servant has to meet qualifications, and then those who passed would have to be trained. How long would this take? No one knows. As a result, if you want to establish a responsible institution, I am afraid that the people would only be more disappointed.

But let's just say that such an anti-corruption commission was created. No one could guarantee that it would be more effective in its anti-corruption work. Because if anti-corruption officials are not given accompanying power to punish, their work is all for naught. And so instead of just waiting around, it's much better to go ahead and start work in the current system. As soon as the anti-corruption campaign is passed, we could immediately begin retraining the people in the anti-corruption departments (what were the second divisions of personnel departments), turning their focus from reviewing the loyalty of public servants [i.e. to ensure they aren't communist agents] to rooting out corruption.

Of course, we are certainly not against establishing an anti-corruption commission; but questions such as what place it would have in the bureaucratic hierarchy and whether or not it would be effective remain to be evaluated. We can't simply see how others have achieved results and think we must do the exact same thing. That's just succumbing to emotionalism.

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）

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)