A Taiwan Businessman's Newspaper Ad and the Rule of Law

A Taiwan Businessman's Newspaper Ad and the Rule of Law
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 23, 2008

Yesterday Taiwan businessman Wu Chen-shun bought a full-page ad on page A14 of the United Daily News. He related bizarre and painful experience of doing business in Qingdao, on the mainland. He openly called for authorities on both sides of the Strait to ensure justice on his behalf.

Reading the full-page ad Wu Chen-shun took out is shocking enough. We lack first-hand information about the incident. But the ad included a letter to SEF Chairman Chiang Pin-kung and to ARATS Chairman Chen Yunlin, saying: "Please contact concerned departments as soon as possible to ascertain the facts, and deal with the matter in accordance with the law." This suggests that Wu Chen-shun's petition has considerable basis in fact.

Since cross-Strait exchanges began, many inspiring stories have emerged, such as that of Master Kong, the instant noodles maker. But at times reports have also emerged of disputes and even tragedies involving mainland officials. We are convinced that these negative incidents are not something the Beijing authorities want to see happening. Some cases of official corruption the Beijing authorities have found particularly intolerable. If the Beijing authorities can uncover the truth in such incidents, and ensure justice, not only will the rights and interests of Taiwan businessmen will be protected, it would amount to a feather in the Beijing authorities' cap. It would benefit cross-Strait relations. It would also help the Beijing authorities to establish clean government and to improve their public image.

Wu Chen-shun's tale leaves one shocked and incredulous. In 1993 he was invited to Qingdao City in Shandong Province by leaders at various levels. He registered three companies In Qingdao, one after the other. Over time he invested 100 million USD. He calculated that if he enhanced the prosperity of the Laoshan region, land prices would soar.

His nightmare began in May 2004. First he was accused of "owning a private army, firearms, and rocket launchers that could reach Beijing in 10 minutes." After the charges were proven to be baseless, new charges were brought, and he was remanded to a detention center in Jinan. "I do not know why I am being held. I do not know when I will be released." Due to mistreatment in the detention center, he climbed the prison wall and escaped. He said: "Who would have imagined that a person in charge of a company worth billions would wind up fleeing in the middle of the night like a common criminal? During my escape, I fell into a three-story-high valley and was almost killed. They sent out nearly 1,000 police and police dogs, recaptured me, and threw me back in the detention center."

Eventually, Wu Chen-shun was released. He had been detained for seven months. He was released on grounds that "following a prolonged investigation, he was found innocent of criminal activity." When he emerged from his dungeon, Wu Chen-shun discovered his businesses had been looted. His six major assets had been transferred to or auctioned off to certain parties by all means available. For example, within four days, his Qingdao International Beer City, in which he had invested 500 million yuan, accumulated 509 million in debt and went bankrupt. Five hundred acres of land were resold. His Edinburgh Garden, with 162 acres of land, was transferred to someone else on the morning just before he was released.

Wu Chen-shun's experience is reminiscent of what many Taiwan businessmen have encountered in the past. The legal process is ugly. Wu Chen-shun said he didn't know why he had been detained, or why he was later released. He was unable to report the case to any of the various departments, such as the Public Security Bureau, Public Prosecutors, or the Courts. Still less was he able to file a complaint. Other cases like this often involve local party and government officials. The party machinery and government machinery automatically favor the victimizer, and become an accomplice in the crime. The victim ends up like a bug splattered on a windshield. Often the bigger the interests at stake, the worse political persecution the victim encounters. In the case of Wu Chen-shun, it led to the incredible scenario of a businessman in charge of billions being forced to flee in the middle of the night.

Cross-Strait exchanges are increasing rapidly. Both Taiwan investments on the mainland and mainland investments on Taiwan involve individual cases of commercial exchange. They promote a win/win cross-Strait scenario. They enhance cross-Strait peace and friendship. Authorities on both sides of the Strait hope that people-to-people cross-Strait economic and trade exchanges will enhance cross-Strait relations. Their most basic responsibility is to ensure that decent, honest people are protected by the rule of law.

In fact, the "rule of law" that Hu Jintao champions is basic. The result must be the legal protection of Taiwan businessmens' rights and interests. If the rule of law can be implemented, Taiwan businessmen's rights will naturally be protected. The Beijing authorities' concept of the "rule of law" must not be destroyed by evil individuals. This is true for both Taiwan businessmen and for people on the mainland. We must speak up, not merely on behalf of Wu Chen-shun and other Taiwan businessmen. We must look forward to the promulgation of the rule of law on the Chinese mainland.

從一則台商陳情廣告談起
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.07.23 03:12 am

台商吳振順昨日在本報Ａ14版刊登全版廣告，痛陳他在大陸青島投資經商的離奇經歷，並公開呼籲兩岸政府為他主持公道。

讀罷吳振順的全版陳情書，令人震驚至難以置信的地步。我們雖對整個事件無第一手資料，但廣告附帶刊出了海基會董事長江丙坤致海協會會長陳雲林的函文，「敬請惠洽相關部門儘速查明事實真相，依法妥慎處理」，可徵吳振順的陳情應有相當憑據。

兩岸開放交流以來，雖有許多令人欣慰的傳奇故事，如康師傅；但也時常傳出糾紛，甚至悲劇，其中亦往往涉及大陸官方人士。我們相信，那些負面事件皆非北京當局所願見，且在有些事件中傳出的官方貪腐情事尤非北京當局所能容忍；北京當局若能對此類事件查明真相內情，主張公道正義，非但台商權益可獲保護，且亦是北京政府整飭吏治的正大作為。這不但有益兩岸關係，更必有助於北京當局端正政風，改善形象。

吳振順的故事，讀來令人驚愕不置。他在一九九三年受山東省及青島市各級領導「盛情邀請」，在青島前後註冊了三家公司，陸續投資了一億美元；他認為，帶動了嶗山一帶的繁榮，地價飛漲。

噩夢發生在二○○四年五月。起先，他被檢舉「擁有私人軍隊、槍械，火箭炮十分鐘內可以打到北京」。查無此事後，又以其他罪名，押入濟南看守所；「不知何以被關，不知何時才能獲釋」。後因難熬看守所中待遇，某日他竟翻牆越獄。他說：「誰能想到一個坐擁上百億公司的負責人，竟會在深夜狼狽地逃亡？在過程中我還掉進三層樓高的山谷，差點活活摔死……他們出動了近千名公安及警犬……又把我抓回了看守所裡。」

最後，吳振順被釋放時，距他被押已七個月。釋放的理由是「經長期調查，沒有犯罪」。出了黑牢，吳振順才發現他的事業已經完全解構，「六大資產」被「這些人」「用盡各種手段」過戶、拍賣、轉移。例如，在四天之內，將他投資五億元的「青島國際啤酒城」，以九百萬元債務，宣告破產，將五百畝土地轉售；又如，他擁有的「愛丁堡花園」，一六二畝土地，則在他被釋放前的當日早上被人過戶。

吳振順的事例，與過去聽聞的台商遭遇有頗多類似之處。例如，法律程序皆十分粗陋，如吳振順稱不知何以被羈押，亦不知何故被釋放；甚至在「公／檢／法」各部門，無法報案，更無法立案。又如，類此案件常有地方黨政人員涉入，以致黨政機器一面倒向加害者，成了共犯結構，被害人自是螳臂不能擋車；且往往牽涉利益愈大者，被害人遭遇的政治迫害愈大。以吳振順之例而言，居然造成了「一個坐擁上百億公司的負責人，竟然深夜（越獄）狼狽逃亡」的場景，真是匪夷所思。

兩岸交流正在快速提升，無論是台商赴大陸投資，或陸商來台灣經商，其中每一個商貿交流的個案，皆是促進兩岸互惠雙贏的元素，亦是增進兩岸和平友好的題材；兩岸當局在寄望雙方人民經貿交流能為兩岸互動累積成效時，最基本的責任是應當使雙方善良人民受到法治的保護。

其實，胡錦濤所主張的「以法治國」是根本，台商權益的法律保障則是結果。若能實現「以法治國」，台商的法律保障即是水到渠成。北京當局的「以法治國」理念，不容地方不肖人士破壞；不論是對台商，或對大陸人民。準此以論，我們其實不只是要為吳振順等台商個案說話，而更是對中國大陸的法治發展寄以期待。