State-owned Banks "Facilitate" the Join the UN Campaign

State-owned Banks "Facilitate" the Join the UN Campaign, but the Financial Supervisory Commission merely looks on
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 25, 2007

A row of well-dressed men in expensive business suits, stands on the floor of the Legislative Yuan. These men are CEOs and general managers of state-owned banks and credit unions. They have been summoned here by Members of the Legislature. These officials are guilty of turning funds entrusted to their care over to the Executive Yuan, allowing the ruling DPP to misuse these funds paying for its "Join the UN" campaign. They now stand obediently before the legislature.

State-owned banks and credit unions are well recognized "golden rice bowls." Which of these officials, each of whom has clawed his way to the rank of CEO or general manager, isn't a player? Yet here they stand, hemming and hawing, with nothing to say. They must endure this humiliation because they know they have behaved dishonorably. Grilling by legislators reveals that most of these officials, using "advertising expenditures" as a pretext, turned funds under their management over to the Government Information Office, for the purpose of promoting the ruling DPP regime's "Join the UN" campaign. The Taiwan Cooperative Bank and the Taiwan Business Bank, for example, invited major borrowers to participate in a series of Democratic Progressive Party fundraising dinners. Even the First Commercial Bank, which has already been privatized, donated 10 million NT to the National Cultural Association, in the name of "Pubic Relations to Promote the Image of the Nation."

These highly partisan expenditures were clearly intended to help the Democratic Progressive Party's election efforts. They were illegitimate on the face of it, and could only be made under false pretenses. They violate the revenue and expenditure provisions of the Budget Law for state-owned banks and credit unions. They exceed the limits of authority for professional managers of such institutions. Most of these banks and credit unions are publicly held companies. Not only must they must answer to their depositors, they must also answer to small shareholders. What responsible financier is willing to ignore profits and scatter money to the winds? And we haven't even mentioned the issue of legal liability. Legislators fulminated, demanding that these funds to be deducted directly from these CEOs' and general managers' year end bonuses. In fact, these bank managers are already under suspicion for diverting funds and violating the public trust.

These managers of state-owned bank and credit union managers, under pressure from "higher authorities," did not dare speaking freely. Minister of Finance He Chih-chin looked as if he were under duress. He mumbled some vague generalities about "Administrative Guidance by a Comprehensive Executive Yuan Plan." This is not the first time Minister He has been outside the loop. Public announcements of important government plans such as tax reform were made by Conference for Economic Reconstruction Chairman He Mei-yue. When questioned, Minister He said he knew nothing about the matter. He Chih-chin's role is to provide a scholarly image for the Ministry of Finance. The fact that he has no real power has been public knowledge for a long time. The Financial Supervisory Commission is the domestic financial organization responsible for oversight and control of the nation's domestic financial institutions. It stands on the front lines. It is the entity that most ought to step forward and take responsibility for the scandal. But what are Chairman Hu Sheng-cheng and current Bank Bureau Vice Chairman Chang Hsiu-lien doing at this very moment?

In recent years, the Financial Supervisory Commission has often been criticized for doing too much. Many of its committee chairmen, committee members, and bureau chiefs are mired in legal scandals. The Rebar Group controversy led judges to suspect that Financial Supervisory Commission managers had been making illegal loans. The public still has a vivid memory of the presiding judge blasting the Financial Supervisory Commission for dereliction of duty and patronage. Faced with such accusations, the Financial Supervisory Commission has vigorously and resolutely sworn to establish strict controls. During the past half year it has helped prosecute quite a few domestic bank managers. Bank managers now jump at the slightest sound. For public financial institutions to turn over funds to designated political organizations or political parties, under the guise of business expenses, and to expect not to be investigated, fined, and prosecuted, is inconceivable.

And yet now, before the public eye, in broad daylight, we see banks collectively donating money to the "Join the UN" campaign, inviting major borrowers to wine and dine Democratic Progressive Party candidates. We see bank chairmen of the board and general managers being called onto the floor of the Legislative Yuan and being forced to stand at attention, receive tongue-lashings, while struggling to explain themselves. Can Hu Sheng-cheng and Chang Hsiu-lien really turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to these outrages? These public banks and credit unions, which take their orders from major stockholders of public shares, have harmed the interests of many smaller and younger shareholders. Isn't the Securities and Futures Investors Protection Center supposed to be watching over such abuses? Officials of the judiciary reproached the Financial Supervisory Commission for official patronage, for allowing favored banks to violate the law. Yet now we see with our own eyes "guanxi" between the Executive Yuan, the Financial Supervisory Commission, and state owned banks and credit unions. How are we supposed to feel?

A number of years ago, when the Legislative Yuan interpellated Minister of Economic Affairs Chung Tsai-yi, she was forced to admit she had no idea what was happening all around her, and to hurriedly resigned after only 40 days in office. The public regarded the incident as a joke. But at least the government had the decency to admit its inadequacies, and conduct itself correspondingly. The apparent cluelessness of our current Minister of Finance is far more shocking. Standing alongside a row of CEOs and general managers in the Legislative Yuan, officials of our current Financial Supervisory Commission apparently need to have their mistakes pointed out to them in court by a judge. In fact they are perfectly aware of the illicit activities of state-owned banks and credit unions. But they are unwilling or unable to do anything about it. Political appointees and professional managers alike have suffered humiliation and abuse from the ruling DPP. Do they really intend to cling to their jobs without giving a thought to their dignity? No wonder some people are nostalgic for Chung Tsai-yi.

銀行「援交」入聯：金管會豈可坐視？
【聯合報╱社論】
2007.10.25 03:39 am

立法院裡一字排開，個個西裝筆挺大有來頭，不是董事長就是總經理。這是公營行庫高層被立法委員召喚「出列」的景象，凡「上繳」經費給行政院辦入聯宣傳的都被點名，結果就出現了這些董事長、總經理乖乖排隊站好的畫面。

公營行庫都是老字號金飯碗，能升上老總、老董的，誰沒有兩把刷子？如今在立法院裡遭此羞辱，卻多半訥訥說不出話來，因為他們做的事確實不光彩。立委質詢指出，多家公股行庫以「業務廣告費」之名，將銀行預算上繳新聞局辦入聯；合庫、台企銀等銀行則是接連邀約貸款大戶參加民進黨候選人出席的餐宴，有拉票和選舉募款之嫌；又有如已經民營化的第一銀行，最近也捐款一千萬元給文化總會，用以「辦理提升國家形象宣傳活動經費」。

這些政治性極高、擺明了替民進黨助選的經費開銷，師出無名，必須挪用預算。以公營行庫的收支原則來說，是違反了預算法規定；以公司治理的規範來說，是違背了專業經理人的職務權限；甚至以這些行庫多已上市的事實來評斷，不但要向存戶負責，還應向小市民股東們負責。算盤精明的金融家，誰肯如此不計利潤、向外撒錢？更何況其中還有法律責任。立委開罵，指這些款項應直接從董事長和總經理的年終獎金中扣除；其實，這些銀行主管恐已涉及挪用預算和背信的嫌疑。

公營行庫主管受「上級」壓力而有口難言，財政部長何志欽好像也身不由己，模糊回答了「行政院整體施政方案宣導」等籠統話語。何部長對重要政策處於狀況外，不是第一次；就連政府擬進行稅賦改革等大事，也是由經建會主委何美玥對外宣布，何部長在記者詢問時猶不知所云。何志欽被放在檯面上扮演著學者形象、卻無指揮實權的財政部長，受議論已久；這是另一層面的問題了。而最應出來管事的金管會，在第一線上負責監理國內金融機構的主管機關，主委胡勝正和身兼銀行局長的副主委張秀蓮，此時此刻所做何事？

金管會近年來的行事，總在過猶不及之間遭到批評。除了多位主委、委員、局長等人身陷違法醜聞之外，力霸集團風暴引起法官質疑金檢主管長年縱容違法放貸，審判長當庭痛罵金管會官員失職和圖利的那一幕，社會記憶猶新。金管會受此指責，一度雷厲風行，想要建立嚴厲控管的形象，近半年來將國內銀行主管移送檢調的案例委實不少，也造成風聲鶴唳的效果。可以想像，如果任何一家上市的金融機構，膽敢把業務費用「援交」給特定團體或政黨，不被金管會嚴查、開罰、送辦才怪。

如今在眾目睽睽之下，卻見這麼多家銀行集體發生「捐錢搞入聯」的圖利事實，出面邀約大戶和民進黨候選人餐敘的用心亦昭然若揭；以至於銀行的董事長和總經理們被叫到立法院「罰站」、聽訓，亦無能自辯。則胡勝正和張秀蓮真能對此視若無睹、不加聞問嗎？不僅如此，這些上市行庫聽命於大股東公股的指揮，因而損害了諸多市民小股東的利益，則證券投資人保護中心不應出面管事嗎？當初在法庭上訓斥金管會官員圖利、放縱特定銀行違法的司法人員，如今眼見「行政院—金管會—公營行庫」之間發展出扭曲的「關係人」互動，又該是何種感想？

想當年，宗才怡在立法院裡被質詢得不知所云，經濟部長幹了四十幾天就倉皇下台，被輿論視為笑話，卻也可見其時官場尚有「知難而退」的行為界限。如今的財政部長在其位而不知所云的程度更加驚人，「率領」了一隊董事長和總經理在立法院裡排排站；金管會官員在法庭裡受到法官「指正」，如今對公營行庫的不當行徑絕對心知肚明，卻不能管也不敢管。從政務官到專業經理人，受盡難堪，受盡政治蹧蹋，卻難道繼續在位而不顧尊嚴嗎？也難怪有人說，真懷念宗才怡。