iVOD / 170916
本逐字稿內容由 AI 自動生成，可能包含錯誤、遺漏或誤譯之處。請使用者務必與原始影片音訊內容交叉比對，以確保資訊正確性。另可參考立法院日後釋出的正式公報以取得最終權威版本。
王育敏 @
| Start Time | End Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00,000 | 00:00:11,000 | 請問主席有請提名人 |
| 00:00:11,000 | 00:00:13,000 | 請被提名人 |
| 00:00:21,000 | 00:00:22,000 | 提名人你好 |
| 00:00:22,000 | 00:00:26,000 | 我想這個雖然你是勞權的背景 |
| 00:00:26,000 | 00:00:29,000 | 但是民眾關心的一些議題 |
| 00:00:29,000 | 00:00:31,000 | 作為一個監察委員的提名人 |
| 00:00:31,000 | 00:00:33,000 | 也應該都要同等的關心 |
| 00:00:33,000 | 00:00:35,000 | 所以首先我就要就教你 |
| 00:00:35,000 | 00:00:37,000 | 有關於最近的這個死案事件 |
| 00:00:37,000 | 00:00:39,000 | 我想這個終點有子案 |
| 00:00:39,000 | 00:00:43,000 | 從6月30號爆發以來 |
| 00:00:43,000 | 00:00:46,000 | 到現在其實已經超過一個月了 |
| 00:00:46,000 | 00:00:48,000 | 但是這一個月以來 |
| 00:00:48,000 | 00:00:52,000 | 我們一直在立法院去追查 |
| 00:00:52,000 | 00:00:56,000 | 這個到底真正發生的原因是什麼 |
| 00:00:56,000 | 00:01:00,000 | 但是衛福部給了一個非常簡要的報告 |
| 00:01:00,000 | 00:01:02,000 | 他說有這個原有的問題 |
| 00:01:02,000 | 00:01:04,000 | 有製程的問題 |
| 00:01:04,000 | 00:01:05,000 | 有講跟沒講一樣 |
| 00:01:05,000 | 00:01:06,000 | 把所有的原因都講了 |
| 00:01:06,000 | 00:01:09,000 | 但是沒有確切的一個調查 |
| 00:01:09,000 | 00:01:12,000 | 甚至他的報告公布完之後 |
| 00:01:12,000 | 00:01:15,000 | 被發現還有一批漏掉的 |
| 00:01:15,000 | 00:01:17,000 | 而且已經銷往韓國 |
| 00:01:17,000 | 00:01:20,000 | 所以這整個行政單位的作為 |
| 00:01:20,000 | 00:01:23,000 | 一個是調查其實沒有確實 |
| 00:01:23,000 | 00:01:25,000 | 然後就對外公布 |
| 00:01:25,000 | 00:01:27,000 | 還有漏網之魚 |
| 00:01:27,000 | 00:01:31,000 | 第二個是他們的開會的會議記錄 |
| 00:01:31,000 | 00:01:34,000 | 最關鍵的7月4號 |
| 00:01:34,000 | 00:01:36,000 | 在會議當中去決定了 |
| 00:01:36,000 | 00:01:40,000 | 這個含有問題有品20%以下 |
| 00:01:40,000 | 00:01:42,000 | 不用下架 |
| 00:01:42,000 | 00:01:45,000 | 那這樣的一個決議做出來之後 |
| 00:01:45,000 | 00:01:47,000 | 外面都在追問 |
| 00:01:47,000 | 00:01:49,000 | 這樣的一個會議記錄 |
| 00:01:49,000 | 00:01:51,000 | 為什麼不能公開 |
| 00:01:51,000 | 00:01:53,000 | 而所有的專家學者 |
| 00:01:53,000 | 00:01:59,000 | 都用ABCDEF整個代碼去掩蓋 |
| 00:01:59,000 | 00:02:01,000 | 外界號稱為蓋牌 |
| 00:02:01,000 | 00:02:03,000 | 7月4號開會 |
| 00:02:03,000 | 00:02:05,000 | 一直到立法院 |
| 00:02:05,000 | 00:02:07,000 | 氣而不捨的追查之後 |
| 00:02:07,000 | 00:02:10,000 | 8月5號整整一個月 |
| 00:02:10,000 | 00:02:14,000 | 才願意對外公開會議記錄 |
| 00:02:14,000 | 00:02:16,000 | 而這個會議記錄一公開之後 |
| 00:02:16,000 | 00:02:18,000 | 赫然被發現 |
| 00:02:18,000 | 00:02:21,000 | 其中有一位專家學者朱雁華 |
| 00:02:21,000 | 00:02:24,000 | 今天媒體直接爆出來 |
| 00:02:24,000 | 00:02:29,000 | 這位專家學者出席關鍵的7月4號的會議 |
| 00:02:29,000 | 00:02:31,000 | 但是他竟然被發現 |
| 00:02:31,000 | 00:02:34,000 | 跟現在涉案的中聯 |
| 00:02:34,000 | 00:02:37,000 | 他其實有進到他的場去查場 |
| 00:02:37,000 | 00:02:39,000 | 而且跟他們參序 |
| 00:02:39,000 | 00:02:41,000 | 當天是同一天 |
| 00:02:41,000 | 00:02:43,000 | 跟著中聯的總經理跟廠長 |
| 00:02:43,000 | 00:02:45,000 | 一起來台北開會 |
| 00:02:45,000 | 00:02:47,000 | 關係密切 |
| 00:02:47,000 | 00:02:50,000 | 我現在就要就叫我們的提名人 |
| 00:02:50,000 | 00:02:53,000 | 第一個這個行政單位 |
| 00:02:53,000 | 00:02:56,000 | 所邀請的專家學者 |
| 00:02:56,000 | 00:02:59,000 | 跟廠商關係密切 |
| 00:02:59,000 | 00:03:01,000 | 可以一起參序 |
| 00:03:01,000 | 00:03:04,000 | 同車然後共同出席會議 |
| 00:03:04,000 | 00:03:07,000 | 請問他知道整個衛福部有沒有把關 |
| 00:03:07,000 | 00:03:11,000 | 有沒有做到去篩選這個專家學者 |
| 00:03:11,000 | 00:03:13,000 | 做到利益迴避的原則 |
| 00:03:13,000 | 00:03:15,000 | 如果這個專家學者 |
| 00:03:15,000 | 00:03:19,000 | 他沒有這個跟這個有關聯的廠商 |
| 00:03:19,000 | 00:03:21,000 | 這個利益迴避 |
| 00:03:21,000 | 00:03:23,000 | 甚至他還在會議上面 |
| 00:03:23,000 | 00:03:26,000 | 就是積極主張20%以下 |
| 00:03:26,000 | 00:03:28,000 | 含有問題有品的產品 |
| 00:03:28,000 | 00:03:30,000 | 不用下架主導風向 |
| 00:03:30,000 | 00:03:33,000 | 你個人怎麼看待這樣的事情 |
| 00:03:33,000 | 00:03:37,000 | 因為監察員的職責是做行政上的一個糾正 |
| 00:03:37,000 | 00:03:40,000 | 那我就問你沒有利益迴避這件事 |
| 00:03:40,000 | 00:03:41,000 | 我是覺得如果說 |
| 00:03:41,000 | 00:03:42,000 | 因為這個專家學者 |
| 00:03:42,000 | 00:03:44,000 | 應該不是行政官員 |
| 00:03:44,000 | 00:03:46,000 | 但是如果說 |
| 00:03:46,000 | 00:03:48,000 | 我問你是衛福部的職責 |
| 00:03:48,000 | 00:03:51,000 | 我是說如果這個衛福部他沒有來 |
| 00:03:51,000 | 00:03:54,000 | 不管是提醒還是事後在開會的時候 |
| 00:03:54,000 | 00:03:58,000 | 來做這種利益糾葛的一個揭露的話迴避 |
| 00:03:58,000 | 00:04:00,000 | 我覺得那衛福部的角色 |
| 00:04:00,000 | 00:04:02,000 | 就必須要受到質疑 |
| 00:04:02,000 | 00:04:04,000 | 那如果說委員所說的 |
| 00:04:04,000 | 00:04:06,000 | 這一個專家學者 |
| 00:04:06,000 | 00:04:10,000 | 他事實上跟中聯的高層的這種餐敘 |
| 00:04:10,000 | 00:04:11,000 | 這個同車 |
| 00:04:11,000 | 00:04:15,000 | 到底跟這個後續審查中聯這個 |
| 00:04:15,000 | 00:04:17,000 | 這個就那個會議 |
| 00:04:17,000 | 00:04:20,000 | 他事實上是有沒有一個關聯性因果性 |
| 00:04:20,000 | 00:04:22,000 | 我覺得也要來調查清楚 |
| 00:04:22,000 | 00:04:25,000 | 因為如果說他已經是之前很久了 |
| 00:04:25,000 | 00:04:27,000 | 那是這樣子的話 |
| 00:04:27,000 | 00:04:30,000 | 沒有就是當天同車上台北開會 |
| 00:04:30,000 | 00:04:31,000 | 就開這個會議 |
| 00:04:31,000 | 00:04:33,000 | 你覺得這樣妥適嗎 |
| 00:04:33,000 | 00:04:35,000 | 如果是當天 |
| 00:04:35,000 | 00:04:37,000 | 那我不知道那個同車 |
| 00:04:37,000 | 00:04:40,000 | 到底這個是不是搭便車還是怎麼樣 |
| 00:04:40,000 | 00:04:42,000 | 不過我覺得呢 |
| 00:04:42,000 | 00:04:44,000 | 如果是企業提供的車 |
| 00:04:44,000 | 00:04:46,000 | 我覺得然後在車子裡面 |
| 00:04:46,000 | 00:04:49,000 | 只有中聯跟這個學者專家的話 |
| 00:04:49,000 | 00:04:52,000 | 那我覺得就不太適當 |
| 00:04:52,000 | 00:04:53,000 | 就覺得不太適當 |
| 00:04:53,000 | 00:04:55,000 | 那如果說在會議當中 |
| 00:04:55,000 | 00:04:59,000 | 如果這個食藥署這邊沒有做到這個 |
| 00:04:59,000 | 00:05:03,000 | 提醒這些學者專家要做相關的利益回避的話 |
| 00:05:03,000 | 00:05:06,000 | 那我覺得這個就有行政上的一個舒適 |
| 00:05:06,000 | 00:05:07,000 | 所以你會覺得食藥署 |
| 00:05:07,000 | 00:05:10,000 | 如果沒有積極把關這些專家學者資格 |
| 00:05:10,000 | 00:05:11,000 | 跟廠商的關係 |
| 00:05:11,000 | 00:05:16,000 | 而且讓他進入到這麼一個決定性關鍵的專家會議 |
| 00:05:16,000 | 00:05:18,000 | 那食藥署是不是失職 |
| 00:05:18,000 | 00:05:21,000 | 這個我覺得這個確實這樣子 |
| 00:05:21,000 | 00:05:22,000 | 這樣如果按照這樣的話 |
| 00:05:22,000 | 00:05:25,000 | 我覺得是引起社會大眾非常大的疑慮的 |
| 00:05:25,000 | 00:05:26,000 | 對好 |
| 00:05:26,000 | 00:05:28,000 | 那第二個我要問的是 |
| 00:05:28,000 | 00:05:31,000 | 這麼關鍵的一個會議的會議記錄 |
| 00:05:31,000 | 00:05:35,000 | 7月4號召開立法院一直詢問追查 |
| 00:05:35,000 | 00:05:38,000 | 但是都不提供到8月5號 |
| 00:05:38,000 | 00:05:40,000 | 是因為媒體已經揭露了 |
| 00:05:40,000 | 00:05:41,000 | 揭露部分 |
| 00:05:41,000 | 00:05:44,000 | 所以他們應該是紙包不住火 |
| 00:05:44,000 | 00:05:46,000 | 才被迫提供出來 |
| 00:05:46,000 | 00:05:51,000 | 一個行政單位我們講求政府應該是公開透明 |
| 00:05:51,000 | 00:05:53,000 | 這一些專家學者的會議 |
| 00:05:53,000 | 00:05:57,000 | 如果每一個人的發言都是秉持為了國人的食安 |
| 00:05:57,000 | 00:05:59,000 | 應該可受公平 |
| 00:05:59,000 | 00:06:02,000 | 也應該拿出來被解釋 |
| 00:06:02,000 | 00:06:05,000 | 我記得這個後來政府都一直強調 |
| 00:06:05,000 | 00:06:09,000 | 我們所有的這些會議記錄都一定會上網 |
| 00:06:09,000 | 00:06:13,000 | 而且就是希望公開可受公平接受監督 |
| 00:06:13,000 | 00:06:18,000 | 結果衛福部這個會議遮遮掩掩了一個月之後才公布 |
| 00:06:18,000 | 00:06:21,000 | 你作為一個監察委員的提名人 |
| 00:06:21,000 | 00:06:24,000 | 你針對行政機關有開會 |
| 00:06:24,000 | 00:06:26,000 | 而且是關鍵性的會議 |
| 00:06:26,000 | 00:06:28,000 | 但選擇不揭露 |
| 00:06:28,000 | 00:06:31,000 | 這樣的一個行政權不受立法院的監督 |
| 00:06:31,000 | 00:06:33,000 | 作為一個監察院的提名人 |
| 00:06:33,000 | 00:06:35,000 | 你認為這樣子合適嗎 |
| 00:06:36,000 | 00:06:38,000 | 對的監察委員他 |
| 00:06:38,000 | 00:06:43,000 | 事實上我認為監察委員他就是一個行政的檢察官 |
| 00:06:43,000 | 00:06:46,000 | 就是說對於這個行政部分 |
| 00:06:46,000 | 00:06:48,000 | 如果有失職違法的 |
| 00:06:48,000 | 00:06:52,000 | 那他就等於是經過調查以後 |
| 00:06:52,000 | 00:06:55,000 | 然後提出這個糾正糾舉 |
| 00:06:55,000 | 00:06:58,000 | 這些然後送給懲戒法院 |
| 00:06:58,000 | 00:07:00,000 | 由懲戒法院再來處理 |
| 00:07:00,000 | 00:07:03,000 | 所以我認為他有點像行政檢察官的角色 |
| 00:07:03,000 | 00:07:05,000 | 所以行政單位不公開會議 |
| 00:07:05,000 | 00:07:06,000 | 以及有這個做法 |
| 00:07:06,000 | 00:07:08,000 | 你覺得需要被糾正嗎 |
| 00:07:08,000 | 00:07:10,000 | 對我覺得他如果立案調查的話 |
| 00:07:10,000 | 00:07:13,000 | 那就應該監察委員就透過調查權 |
| 00:07:13,000 | 00:07:15,000 | 來把這些證據收集清楚以後 |
| 00:07:15,000 | 00:07:19,000 | 如果這個官員確實有違法的話 |
| 00:07:19,000 | 00:07:23,000 | 那我們當然就是要送這個懲戒法院來做處理 |
| 00:07:23,000 | 00:07:25,000 | 好那另外一個我想請教的 |
| 00:07:25,000 | 00:07:29,000 | 其實不只是現在大豆有出問題 |
| 00:07:29,000 | 00:07:31,000 | 這個苦茶到目前為止 |
| 00:07:31,000 | 00:07:34,000 | 已經有七家廠商驗出來 |
| 00:07:34,000 | 00:07:38,000 | 他的本品品通通都是超標的 |
| 00:07:38,000 | 00:07:41,000 | 那所以油品的問題不只大豆有出問題 |
| 00:07:41,000 | 00:07:43,000 | 苦茶油也出問題 |
| 00:07:43,000 | 00:07:45,000 | 那苦茶油跟大豆油 |
| 00:07:45,000 | 00:07:49,000 | 都有包含邊境進來的巴西黃豆 |
| 00:07:49,000 | 00:07:52,000 | 或者是中國大陸進來的苦茶油漬 |
| 00:07:52,000 | 00:07:55,000 | 所以他已經是從這個邊境的把關 |
| 00:07:55,000 | 00:07:57,000 | 源頭的上游就已經出問題 |
| 00:07:57,000 | 00:08:00,000 | 但是我們的這個衛福部食藥署 |
| 00:08:00,000 | 00:08:02,000 | 每一年的經費都是在增加的 |
| 00:08:02,000 | 00:08:05,000 | 他現在一年多的經費已經高達90億了 |
| 00:08:05,000 | 00:08:07,000 | 在這樣的情況底下 |
| 00:08:07,000 | 00:08:10,000 | 你認為接連出現油品事件 |
| 00:08:10,000 | 00:08:13,000 | 作為主管食安的食藥署 |
| 00:08:13,000 | 00:08:15,000 | 他是不是源頭把關不力 |
| 00:08:15,000 | 00:08:18,000 | 對於一個監察院的提名人來講 |
| 00:08:18,000 | 00:08:21,000 | 你如果看到這樣的一個現象 |
| 00:08:21,000 | 00:08:23,000 | 會不會主動去立案調查 |
| 00:08:23,000 | 00:08:25,000 | 去瞭解到底是哪一個緩解 |
| 00:08:25,000 | 00:08:27,000 | 行政哪一個緩解出問題 |
| 00:08:27,000 | 00:08:28,000 | 預算也給了 |
| 00:08:28,000 | 00:08:32,000 | 但是為什麼我們的食安還接連出包 |
| 00:08:32,000 | 00:08:34,000 | 我們的食安委員破功 |
| 00:08:34,000 | 00:08:38,000 | 到底行政單位他在一些積極的這個源頭把關 |
| 00:08:38,000 | 00:08:40,000 | 還有他的行政處理上面 |
| 00:08:40,000 | 00:08:42,000 | 到底哪些利有未待 |
| 00:08:42,000 | 00:08:45,000 | 需要行政院要進一步去糾正他們的 |
| 00:08:45,000 | 00:08:48,000 | 你覺得你作為一個監察院提名人 |
| 00:08:48,000 | 00:08:50,000 | 你敢去立案調查嗎 |
| 00:08:50,000 | 00:08:54,000 | 我覺得這個案件造成目前台灣民眾 |
| 00:08:54,000 | 00:08:56,000 | 非常大的一個恐慌 |
| 00:08:56,000 | 00:09:00,000 | 我覺得行政單位確實需要來具體說明 |
| 00:09:00,000 | 00:09:02,000 | 那我覺得有違法的缺失 |
| 00:09:02,000 | 00:09:06,000 | 當然這個監察委員一定要來調查 |
| 00:09:06,000 | 00:09:09,000 | 這樣子的這個過程當中 |
| 00:09:09,000 | 00:09:11,000 | 到底行政官員有沒有疏失 |
| 00:09:11,000 | 00:09:13,000 | 甚至我們的制度面法律面 |
| 00:09:13,000 | 00:09:15,000 | 有沒有需要要改的地方 |
| 00:09:15,000 | 00:09:20,000 | 我覺得應該監察院本來就是要反映民意 |
| 00:09:20,000 | 00:09:22,000 | 透過很多民眾的懲情 |
| 00:09:22,000 | 00:09:27,000 | 對於這個行政部門有這個缺失的提出調查 |
| 00:09:27,000 | 00:09:29,000 | 然後來糾正這個問題 |
| 00:09:29,000 | 00:09:35,000 | 我覺得也是一種等於是要去除民眾的一個疑慮的這個 |
| 00:09:35,000 | 00:09:39,000 | 那我告訴提名人這個案子從這個六月底爆發 |
| 00:09:39,000 | 00:09:42,000 | 可能第六屆的監委覺得他即將要畢業了 |
| 00:09:42,000 | 00:09:44,000 | 都沒有人主動立案 |
| 00:09:44,000 | 00:09:46,000 | 也沒有想要再去管了 |
| 00:09:46,000 | 00:09:49,000 | 所以這件事情是沒有人立案調查的 |
| 00:09:49,000 | 00:09:51,000 | 那我們來看一下第六屆監察院 |
| 00:09:51,000 | 00:09:53,000 | 他行使職權 |
| 00:09:53,000 | 00:09:58,000 | 他相較於過去其實是呈現一個整個全面副成長的趨勢 |
| 00:09:58,000 | 00:10:02,000 | 包括彈劾案件數下降了18.2% |
| 00:10:02,000 | 00:10:06,000 | 然後報告案下降了18.7% |
| 00:10:06,000 | 00:10:10,000 | 核派調查數下降了15.73% |
| 00:10:10,000 | 00:10:13,000 | 糾正案下降了7.6% |
| 00:10:13,000 | 00:10:17,000 | 所以最近為什麼廢除監察院的呼聲再起 |
| 00:10:17,000 | 00:10:22,000 | 是因為監察院他功能不彰表現不佳 |
| 00:10:22,000 | 00:10:26,000 | 所以我只能說你們這些被提名人有一些 |
| 00:10:47,000 | 00:10:49,000 | 好 |