Ronny TONG Ka Wah: Ideological corruption

Ronny TONG Ka Wah: Ideological corruption 思想貪污. 筆者: 湯家驊

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8G4MkFt/
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0KiFmtxMVxiSaz6RNs7ED5mHXaQagkwxns2DaqbHgurtyFekUW4FaB8VD1Tv7WvePl&id=100036400039778&mibextid=wwXIfr

A group of friends had a heated argument over Trump’s words and actions over tea and dinner. Some pointed out that news reports mentioned that within just over a year of his presidency, the Trump family’s investment returns had increased by several billion, making the extent of corruption appalling. However, others retorted with Trump’s own defense—that he has benefited many people, and since he doesn’t manage his personal assets himself, what’s the harm?

The claim that he has benefited many people is a bit of an exaggeration. How can those without resources to invest possibly benefit? Moreover, does the fact that others benefit justify corruption? What kind of logic is that? As for whether he handles his investments personally, that is not the core issue. The key question is whether he has used his special status and privileged knowledge to seek personal gain.

There is a highly significant case in the UK from many years ago: a trustee, with the beneficiary’s consent, developed a business that the beneficiary did not want to be involved in and made millions in profit. Later, the beneficiary’s descendants sued and recovered the full amount. This case highlights an important common law principle: if your profit stems from your special status and privileged knowledge, you have committed the unlawful act of private profiteering. Note that this is a civil violation; whether it constitutes a criminal offense of corruption depends on whether the conduct violates the standards set out in the criminal statutes.

Trump’s promotion of various digital currency (cryptocurrency) platforms and coins under his own name in new ventures is the most classic example of profiting in the name of the presidency. The principle against using one’s position for private gain is designed to prevent those in power from embarking on the path of corruption. Under this principle, everyone else may benefit, but those in high office cannot profit from it. In other words, his family’s windfall profits should belong to all Americans, not to his personal family.

Profiteering from one’s position is a form of corruption; it is dishonest thinking and a corrupt mindset. Even if it does not constitute criminal corruption, it is still a kind of ideological corruption and a manifestation of moral deficiency. From the perspective of a politician, this is also the most repulsive and shameful aspect.

一班朋友茶餘飯後就特朗普言行產生激烈爭辯。有人說，新聞報道提及上任只是一年多，特朗普家族的投資收益增加了數以幾十億計，貪污程度令人咋舌；但也有人說，特朗普的回應是他令很多人得益，個人財產又不是自己管理，有何不妥？

說令很多人得益實是有點過分，沒有資源作投資的人怎可得益？再者，其他人得益便可貪污？這是什麼邏輯？至於投資是否自己處理也非重點，核心問題是有否利用自己的特殊地位和所知牟利。英國多年前有一宗極為重要的案例：有一名信託人在受益人同意下發展一盤受益人不想染指的生意，獲利數以百萬計。後來被受益人後代追討，需全數賠償給受益人後代。這案子點出了一重要的普通法原則：如果你的利益是因為你的特殊地位和所知而得，你便干犯了非法謀取私利的違法行為。留意這是民事上的違法，是否構成刑事上的貪污罪則要視乎行為是否違反刑事條例所訂下的準則。

特朗普在各種數字貨幣（加密貨幣）新項目中以他個人名字推廣多項數字貨幣平台及貨幣就是以總統之名而牟利的最經典例子。不能以位謀私的原則是避免當權者走上貪污之路。在這原則下，所有人可以得益，唯獨身居要位的人不能因此獲益；換言之，他家族的暴利應該屬於所有美國人而非他個人家族。
以位謀私是一種貪污；是一種不誠實思維，一種貪腐心態；縱不是刑事貪污也是一種思想貪污，一種缺德表現；以從政者角度而言，這同樣地也是最令人感到厭惡可恥的一面。