2009-03-08 22:04:15Macoto Chen
公共治理：政治透明化之評估指標（一）
本篇是筆者日前所撰《公共治理：政治透明化之分析架構》（載於http://blog.sina.com.tw/macotochen/article.php?pbgid=423&entryid=613425）的後續內容（仍屬初稿階段），即繼政治透明化的定義、政治透明化之分析架構後，再就政治透明化之評估指標，包括政治獻金透明化之評估指標、新聞媒體自由化之評估指標，與公職人員財產申報透明化之評估指標略加說明……
又為使本研究順利進行，並承研究小組在第一年原《政府透明化分析架構建立之研究》的既有研究成果；在此，擬以政治獻金透明化的評估指標之建構為先，加以說明。尤其是，在對應或參考國際指標之後，俾以建立起台灣的政治透明化之評估指標，即包括政治獻金透明化之評估指標、新聞媒體自由化之評估指標，與公職人員財產申報透明化之評估指標。經過初步的文獻檢閱後，本研究小組認為：
首先，以《美國國際發展機構》（United States Agency for International Development，簡稱USAID）來說，其在2003年所出版的《Money in Politics Handbook: A Guide to Increasing Transparency in Emerging Democracies》（http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/publications/pdfs/pnacr223.pdf, p.65, 2009年3月4日查詢）研究報告中，即曾經就政治獻金透明化的評估建立若干指標，本研究小組加以參考並修正後，認為可以是：
（一）是否有無政治獻金的法律規範存在？如「有」即表示至少有對政黨（含政治團體）或政治人物的收入與支出之規範依據，並得由該國的權威當局加以監督，並將資訊予以公開揭露；反之，如「無」的話，即表示該國家的權威當局並無能力可以有效監督對政黨（含政治團體）或政治人物的金權政治運作，而無政治獻金的透明度可言。
（二）政黨（含政治團體）是否須依法公開揭露？如果「是」，則表示政黨（含政治團體）有義務向該國的權威當局申報，並將申報的結果讓公眾得以查詢週知；反之，有關政黨（含政治團體）須依法公開揭露的規範，尚屬「立法草案」之階段者，就表示其政治獻金的透明度在這部分的程度並不高。
（三）對政黨（含政治團體）的捐贈人名單是否公布？如果「是」，則通常表示在一定以上金額之門檻，捐贈人名單必須公布，從而使公眾得以週知政黨（含政治團體）的實際來源；反之，就表示其政治獻金的透明度在這部分的透明化程度並不高。
（四）政治人物是否須依法公開揭露？如果「是」，則表示政治人物有義務向該國的權威當局申報，並將申報的結果讓公眾得以查詢週知；反之，有關政治人物須依法公開揭露的規範，尚屬「立法草案」之階段者，就表示其政治獻金的透明度在部分的程度並不高。當然，也有些國家則明確排除獨立候選人的申報義務，如波蘭、保加利亞、巴拿馬、哥倫比亞等國，顯然是此類國家對於政黨與從政黨員的規範較為明確，也更為關注。
（五）該國公民得否依法隨時查詢前述該國權威當局所持有或保管的政黨（含政治團體）或政治人物之政治獻金資訊？如果「可以」，就表示政治獻金透明化的程度更高；反之，則否。
其次，新聞媒體自由之評估指標，則可以參考《自由之家(Freedom House)》與《無疆界記者組織》所建構的指標，尤其是Lee B. Becker、Tudor Vlad,與Nancy Nusser等三位學者的《An Evaluation of Press Freedom Indicators》(Becker, Vlad & Nusser,2007. International Communication Gazette, Vol. 69, No. 1, 5-28 .查閱網址是http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=24046)。他們認為《自由之家》所建構的評估指標已超過20年，已經具有相當的意義，且評比指標項目包括印刷品內容、廣播內容、網路新聞、政治力介入的程度，以及相關法律環境等面向，已將法律環境、政治環境及經濟環境等多項指標資料客觀化並進行評比，即具有一定的客觀性可以參考，但他們仍選擇加以修正並成為《無疆界記者組織》的評比指標。更具體的說，《無疆界記者組織》的評估項目，除其他項目（所謂其他項目就是指是否各該國家是否另有下列50項以外的特殊之評比面向）外，係包括：
PHYSICAL ATTACKS, IMPRISONMENT AND DIRECT THREATS
During this time, how many journalists and media assistants:
1. Were murdered?
2. Were murdered, with the state involved?
3. Were arrested or sent to prison (for however long)?
4. Are currently in jail and serving a heavy sentence (more than a year) for a media-related offence?
5. Were physically attacked or injured?
6. Were personally threatened? Were any journalists (yes/no):
7. Illegally imprisoned (no arrest warrant, in violation of maximum period of detention, without trial or court appearance)?
8. Tortured or ill-treated?
9. Kidnapped or did any disappear?
10. Forced to leave the country because of pressure?Over the period, was/were there (yes/no):
11. Armed militias or secret organisations targeting journalists (terrorist action, bomb attack, murders, kidnapping, direct threat etc)?
12. Journalists who had to be accompanied by bodyguards or use security measures (bullet-proof jackets, armoured vehicles etc) while doing their work?
INDIRECT THREATS AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Over the period, was/were there (yes/no):
13. Attacks on or threats against press freedom activists?
14. Surveillance of journalists (phone-tapping, being followed etc)?
15. Foreign journalists deported?
16. Journalists forced to stop working through harassment, threats or political pressure?
17. Problems of access to public or official information (refusal by officials, selection of information provided according to the media’s editorial line etc)?
18. Restricted physical or reporting access to any regions of the country (official ban, strict official control etc)?
19. Problems getting journalist visas for foreign media (undue delay, demand to know names of people to be interviewed etc)?
LEGAL SITUATION AND UNJUSTIFIED PROSECUTION
Over the period, was/were there (yes/no):
20. Unjustified and improper use of fines, summonses or legal action against journalists or media outlets?
21. Cases of violating the privacy of journalistic sources (prosecution, search of premises, investigations etc.)?
22. Routine failure to prosecute those responsible for seriously violating press freedom (killers and kidnappers of journalists etc)?
23. Prison terms imposed for press-related offences defined by law?
CENSORSHIP, SELF CENSORSHIP
Over the period, was/were there (yes/no):
24. An official prior censorship body systematically checking all media content?
25. Media outlets censored, seized or ransacked? (how many?)
26. Routine self-censorship in the privately-owned media? Give this a score from 0 (no self-censorship) to 5 (strong self-censorship)?
27. Subjects that were taboo (the armed forces, government corruption, religion, the royal family, the opposition, demands of separatists, human rights, etc)?
28. News that was suppressed or delayed because of political or business pressure?
29. Do the media report the negative side of government policies?
30. Do the media report the negative side of actions of powerful companies or their owners?
31. Do the media undertake investigative journalism?
......以下待續......
又為使本研究順利進行，並承研究小組在第一年原《政府透明化分析架構建立之研究》的既有研究成果；在此，擬以政治獻金透明化的評估指標之建構為先，加以說明。尤其是，在對應或參考國際指標之後，俾以建立起台灣的政治透明化之評估指標，即包括政治獻金透明化之評估指標、新聞媒體自由化之評估指標，與公職人員財產申報透明化之評估指標。經過初步的文獻檢閱後，本研究小組認為：
首先，以《美國國際發展機構》（United States Agency for International Development，簡稱USAID）來說，其在2003年所出版的《Money in Politics Handbook: A Guide to Increasing Transparency in Emerging Democracies》（http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/publications/pdfs/pnacr223.pdf, p.65, 2009年3月4日查詢）研究報告中，即曾經就政治獻金透明化的評估建立若干指標，本研究小組加以參考並修正後，認為可以是：
（一）是否有無政治獻金的法律規範存在？如「有」即表示至少有對政黨（含政治團體）或政治人物的收入與支出之規範依據，並得由該國的權威當局加以監督，並將資訊予以公開揭露；反之，如「無」的話，即表示該國家的權威當局並無能力可以有效監督對政黨（含政治團體）或政治人物的金權政治運作，而無政治獻金的透明度可言。
（二）政黨（含政治團體）是否須依法公開揭露？如果「是」，則表示政黨（含政治團體）有義務向該國的權威當局申報，並將申報的結果讓公眾得以查詢週知；反之，有關政黨（含政治團體）須依法公開揭露的規範，尚屬「立法草案」之階段者，就表示其政治獻金的透明度在這部分的程度並不高。
（三）對政黨（含政治團體）的捐贈人名單是否公布？如果「是」，則通常表示在一定以上金額之門檻，捐贈人名單必須公布，從而使公眾得以週知政黨（含政治團體）的實際來源；反之，就表示其政治獻金的透明度在這部分的透明化程度並不高。
（四）政治人物是否須依法公開揭露？如果「是」，則表示政治人物有義務向該國的權威當局申報，並將申報的結果讓公眾得以查詢週知；反之，有關政治人物須依法公開揭露的規範，尚屬「立法草案」之階段者，就表示其政治獻金的透明度在部分的程度並不高。當然，也有些國家則明確排除獨立候選人的申報義務，如波蘭、保加利亞、巴拿馬、哥倫比亞等國，顯然是此類國家對於政黨與從政黨員的規範較為明確，也更為關注。
（五）該國公民得否依法隨時查詢前述該國權威當局所持有或保管的政黨（含政治團體）或政治人物之政治獻金資訊？如果「可以」，就表示政治獻金透明化的程度更高；反之，則否。
其次，新聞媒體自由之評估指標，則可以參考《自由之家(Freedom House)》與《無疆界記者組織》所建構的指標，尤其是Lee B. Becker、Tudor Vlad,與Nancy Nusser等三位學者的《An Evaluation of Press Freedom Indicators》(Becker, Vlad & Nusser,2007. International Communication Gazette, Vol. 69, No. 1, 5-28 .查閱網址是http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=24046)。他們認為《自由之家》所建構的評估指標已超過20年，已經具有相當的意義，且評比指標項目包括印刷品內容、廣播內容、網路新聞、政治力介入的程度，以及相關法律環境等面向，已將法律環境、政治環境及經濟環境等多項指標資料客觀化並進行評比，即具有一定的客觀性可以參考，但他們仍選擇加以修正並成為《無疆界記者組織》的評比指標。更具體的說，《無疆界記者組織》的評估項目，除其他項目（所謂其他項目就是指是否各該國家是否另有下列50項以外的特殊之評比面向）外，係包括：
PHYSICAL ATTACKS, IMPRISONMENT AND DIRECT THREATS
During this time, how many journalists and media assistants:
1. Were murdered?
2. Were murdered, with the state involved?
3. Were arrested or sent to prison (for however long)?
4. Are currently in jail and serving a heavy sentence (more than a year) for a media-related offence?
5. Were physically attacked or injured?
6. Were personally threatened? Were any journalists (yes/no):
7. Illegally imprisoned (no arrest warrant, in violation of maximum period of detention, without trial or court appearance)?
8. Tortured or ill-treated?
9. Kidnapped or did any disappear?
10. Forced to leave the country because of pressure?Over the period, was/were there (yes/no):
11. Armed militias or secret organisations targeting journalists (terrorist action, bomb attack, murders, kidnapping, direct threat etc)?
12. Journalists who had to be accompanied by bodyguards or use security measures (bullet-proof jackets, armoured vehicles etc) while doing their work?
INDIRECT THREATS AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Over the period, was/were there (yes/no):
13. Attacks on or threats against press freedom activists?
14. Surveillance of journalists (phone-tapping, being followed etc)?
15. Foreign journalists deported?
16. Journalists forced to stop working through harassment, threats or political pressure?
17. Problems of access to public or official information (refusal by officials, selection of information provided according to the media’s editorial line etc)?
18. Restricted physical or reporting access to any regions of the country (official ban, strict official control etc)?
19. Problems getting journalist visas for foreign media (undue delay, demand to know names of people to be interviewed etc)?
LEGAL SITUATION AND UNJUSTIFIED PROSECUTION
Over the period, was/were there (yes/no):
20. Unjustified and improper use of fines, summonses or legal action against journalists or media outlets?
21. Cases of violating the privacy of journalistic sources (prosecution, search of premises, investigations etc.)?
22. Routine failure to prosecute those responsible for seriously violating press freedom (killers and kidnappers of journalists etc)?
23. Prison terms imposed for press-related offences defined by law?
CENSORSHIP, SELF CENSORSHIP
Over the period, was/were there (yes/no):
24. An official prior censorship body systematically checking all media content?
25. Media outlets censored, seized or ransacked? (how many?)
26. Routine self-censorship in the privately-owned media? Give this a score from 0 (no self-censorship) to 5 (strong self-censorship)?
27. Subjects that were taboo (the armed forces, government corruption, religion, the royal family, the opposition, demands of separatists, human rights, etc)?
28. News that was suppressed or delayed because of political or business pressure?
29. Do the media report the negative side of government policies?
30. Do the media report the negative side of actions of powerful companies or their owners?
31. Do the media undertake investigative journalism?
......以下待續......