Chen Tsung-ming should resign as Prosecutor General

Unable to explain his presence at a banquet,
Chen Tsung-ming should resign as Prosecutor General
United Daily News Editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 4, 2007


Chen Tsung-ming, Prosecutor General

Comment: Chen Tsung-ming is the first ever Prosecutor General of the ROC. His counterpart in the US would be the attorney general. The position of prosecutor general carries with it enormous responsibility, and requires a person of Solomonic impartiality. Chen Tsung-ming does not even remotely qualify as such a person. In fact; he is its diametric opposite. He is exactly the kind of oily "player," who goes along to get along, that one would expect from a cronyist dictatorship. The following United Daily News Editorial is absolutely correct in demanding his resignation.

Unable to explain his presence at a banquet,
Chen Tsung-ming should resign as Prosecutor General
United Daily News Editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 4, 2007

Chen Tsung-ming, who was appointed prosecutor general amidst intense controversy, has not only forgotten the solemn pledge he made to the legislature, he doesn't even appreciate the discretion that his new role requires. Before and after Chinese New Year, he attended banquets held by the First Family's doctor Huang Fang-yen, a defendant in the gift certificate scandal. Following exposure by the media, Chen Tsung-ming unrepentantly referred to his actions as "No big deal!" Is such a prosecutor general worthy of the people's and the judiciary's confidence?

The purpose of establishing the prosecutor general system is to reduce the influence of politics over the prosecutorial system, thereby promoting judicial independence. Chen Tsung-ming, as the first ever prosecutor general, has not only neglected his duty in this regard, he has demonstrated sheer indifference to the reputation of the judiciary. That is why he dared to cross the line of demarcation between proper and improper conduct.

We haven't even mentioned the disreputable go-between role Huang Fang Yan played in the Sogo gift certificate case, in which he performed the role of spin-controller for the First Family, also something the man in the street is well aware of. If Chen Tsung-ming, in response to such a sensitive banquet invitation, could attend as if doing so was no big deal, ignoring the distinction between public and private interests, does that mean that officials of the judiciary and those involved in judicial cases may fraternize and even exchange toasts with each other, without any constraints?

Even more serious is the fact that afterwards he did not come clean, but publicly lied. Regarding the get together, Chen Tsung-ming stated that a mutual friend invited them, that he and Huang Fang-yen "don't know each other all that well." Huang Fang-yen however stated that both of them have experienced family tragedies and frequently "discuss matters of the heart." Regarding the meeting time, Chen Tsung-ming declared that it went on for only an hour, but a neighbor and the gatekeeper revealed that he stopped by on the same day for over four hours, and that this was not the only occasion. He had done so several times before and after Chinese New Year. Based on the discrepancies in his explanations, Chen Tsung-ming has been neither frank nor forthcoming, and appears to be covering up certain facts.

Because Chen Tsung-ming has been less than candid, this has increased the outside world's suspicions towards him and Huang Fan-yen. If in fact they enjoy a personal friendship, why the huge gap between their statements? Why the need to lie about the duration of their meeting? If the statements of the gatekeeper and the neighbor are not in error, then before and after Chinese New Year he visited the Huang family several times, in which case the situation arouses suspicion, because such frequent visits far exceed those that occur between normal friends. In which case, why was Chen Tsung-ming visiting the Huang family so frequently? What exactly did the two talk about? Did their talks involve the violation of any oaths of office? Chen Tsung-ming must respond to these questions in detail before the legislature. Only by doing so will he be able to allow people from all walks of life to determine whether he is still fit to assume the duties of prosecutor general.

During the Legislative Yuan's review of the prosector general's qualifications, the most controversial point was Chen Tsung-ming's complex web of contacts. Chen Tsung-ming is distinguished by his ability to exploit personal relations, i.e., "guang xi." The main reason the People First Party repaid him by voting for his approval was his friendly relations with James Soong. Conversely speaking, this kind of gregarious, "ominivorous" personality trait, is the principle reason the judiciary is unable to avoid hindrance by favoritism. In other words, Chen Tsung-ming achieved prominence because of his personal relationships, but at the same time his personal relationships are an obstacle in the way of his capacity for judicial independence. We can see from the Huang family banquet incident that it is basically unrealistic to expect an official prone to micromanagement to maintain judicial impartiality.

In any normal nation under the rule of law, any official of the judiciary who privately fraternizes with parties directly or indirectly involved in a legal case, is in violation of professional ethics, and subject to severe punishment. If we wish to establish a historical precedent on Taiwan, making the first-ever prosecutor general a role model worthy of emulation, then Chen Tsung-ming's transgressions must be subjected to the strictest investigation, and may not be glossed over. Not only must the Legislative Yuan demand that Chen Tsung-ming submit an exhaustive report of his conduct, it should form a special committee to investigate the facts of the case. If it discovers that Chen practiced favoritism, acted improperly, or perjured himself, it must demand that Chen Tsung-ming resign the office of prosecutor general. First, this will ensure that the integrity of the judiciary has not been compromised during the banquets he attended; Second, this will motivate Chen Tsung-ming to become more conscious of his solemn duty; Third, this will resolve suspicions on the part of other prosecutors and society as a whole.

We can see from the record of President Chen's behavior how it is easy it is for a nation's political system to be destroyed at the hands of a single individual. The prosecutor general system has just been initiated. It must not be destroyed by a single banquet that cannot be accounted for. This is an account that Chen Tsung-ming must settle, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Original Chinese below:

聯合報社論
交代不清夜宴始末，
陳聰明即應辭檢察總長　
2007.03.04

方在爭議中出任檢察總長，陳聰明不僅旋即忘卻他對國會的莊嚴承諾，更不知自己的新角色有何分寸需要謹守，他在春節前後接連赴涉及禮券醜聞的第一醫師黃芳彥家夜宴。被媒體揭發後，陳聰明似乎仍不以為忤，自稱「這沒什麼啊！」這樣的檢察總長，還值得人民和司法信賴嗎？

檢察總長制度的設置，目的是在減少政治對檢察系統的控制，從而提升司法的獨立。陳聰明枉為首屆檢察總長，對這項職務的操持非但毫無警覺，更不把司法榮譽的維持放在心上，也因此，他才會連最起碼的形式迴避的界線都敢踐踏。

且不說黃芳彥在ＳＯＧＯ禮券案中不名譽的穿梭角色，他為第一家庭「打點」對外關係，亦是路人皆知的事。對如此敏感的邀宴，陳聰明如果可以若無其事地赴約，還覺得於公於私皆無損；那麼，今後所有司法官與案件關係人酬酢交往，是不是也都可以無所禁忌？

更嚴重的，是他事後的不坦白，甚至公開說謊。對於因何聚會，陳聰明說是友人居間邀約，他與黃芳彥並「不相熟」；黃芳彥則稱，兩人都有過家庭變故，經常聊天「談心事」。對於聚會時間，陳聰明聲稱只去了一小時，但鄰居和門房均稱他被爆料當日即逗留了四小時，且不僅這次，春節前後來過數回。從這些說詞的出入看，陳聰明並沒有對社會開誠布公，且似乎在刻意掩蓋某些事實。

正由於陳聰明的缺乏坦誠，更加深了外界對他和黃芳彥夜會所為何來的質疑。如果真是私人交誼，為何雙方說詞落差那麼大？又為何需要捏造聚會時間？而如果門房和鄰居的說法無誤，他在春節前後曾數度造訪黃家，那麼情況即益發啟人疑竇，因為那樣的頻率，已遠超乎朋友間交往拜會之常情。那麼，陳聰明究竟為何頻繁造訪黃家？雙方究竟談了什麼？有沒有涉及任何職務之承諾？這些，陳聰明都有必要詳盡將經過向國會提出說明，才能讓各界了解他是否仍堪擔當檢察總長的職務。

立法院在審查檢察總長資格時，陳聰明最滋爭議的一點，即是他的交往太過複雜。陳聰明的特質，是他善於人際關係，長於人和；親民黨當時為「回報」他對宋楚瑜的友好而投票支持他，這是主要原因。但反過來看，這種喜好交際、葷素不忌的性格，恰恰也是司法擺脫不了人情羈絆的主因。也就是說，陳聰明因人和而得以出線，但對人情交際的不拘，卻又成為他維持司法獨立的障礙。從黃家夜宴事件即可看出，要寄望一個喜歡面面俱到的總長來維持檢察系統的超然，根本不可能有兩全的機會。

在正常的法治國家，任何司法官員私會涉案人或其關係人，都是違背職業倫理的行為，將遭嚴厲處分。在台灣，若要建立史上首位檢察總長的角色典範，對陳聰明的踰矩行為，絕對應該嚴加追究，不可輕忽。立法院除要求陳聰明就此提出詳盡報告，更應該組織專案小組調查其真偽；如果發現徇私、失當或說謊情事，則應要求陳聰明辭去總長職務。 一來，是要確保沒有任何司法正義在夜宴中被出賣；二來，這可促使陳聰明對其職務之神聖性提高警覺；三來，也是對社會及檢察界的疑慮作一澄清。

國家制度設計的美意，多麼容易毀於一人之手，從陳水扁總統的作為即可見殷鑑歷歷。檢察總長制才要上路，不能被一場說詞迷離的夜宴給破壞；這筆帳，陳聰明非交代清楚不可。