The Outrages of the Second Financial Reform Scandal are Intolerable

The Outrages of the Second Financial Reform Scandal are Intolerable
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 19, 2008

The Special Investigation Unit has appealed in the Chen corruption case. Prosecutors are expected to focus on the Second Financial Reform scandal and related scandals during its next wave of investigation. The Chen corruption case bill of indictment includes the names of many prominent businessmen. One or two of them are building contractors or real estate agents. Most are heads of financial institutions. They may have played different roles in the Chen family corruption case. Some of them delivered money to Chen's official residence. Some transported money to their banks. Others gave Chen kickbacks or contributions. Others helped the Chen family launder money overseas. Some delivered money. Some transported money. Some gave money. Some laundered money. The one thing they had in common was they were all part of the inner circle of the corrupt man on the throne. Had this not been the case, the Chen family would not have entrusted so many dark and shameful secrets to them. The Special Investigation Unit's bill of indictment noted that these businessmen will be the subjects of a separate investigation. Leave criminal responsibility aside for the moment. Everyone should be concerned about the civil, social, and moral responsibility these financial industry heads owe society as a whole.

Some businessmen told the Special Investigation Unit or the media that they gave money to the president under duress, because they were intimidated by the despotic power and authority of the presidency. Most people are unlikely to buy such arguments. According to reports, Ah-Bian and Ah-Cheng implied that even Wang Yung-ching gave them money. But Wang Yung-ching, the "God of Enterprise," was honest and forthright. He clearly ignored such demands. Common sense suggests that those who willingly colluded with the president had ulterior motives. Some provided kickbacks in order to profit from illicit land deals. Some contributed money in order to acquire control of Fu Hwa Bank. Some contributed money right at the moment CITIC was attempting to swallow up Mega Bank. Some helped the Chen family launder money because Chen appointed them board members of holding companies.

In short, these businessmen eagerly abetted the president's corruption, and were handsomely rewarded for their efforts. They contributed a mere two or three hundred million in cash. In return they received trillions in state-run bank assets. No matter how one looks at it, "coercion" isn't the word that comes to mind. Prominent businessmen shuttled to and from the president's official residence. They helped Ah-Bian transport money. They cooked for his wife. They connected with Ma Yung-cheng. In exchange, they were able to play god in the financial sector, and act high and mighty. Their overweening ambition was clear for all to see. Take CITIC's acquistion of Mega Bank. If not for the Hong Huo case, over two trillion in Mega Bank assets would have been swallowed up. They contributed two or three hundred million in exchange for control over trillions. No wonder these businessman beat a path to the president's official residence.

We are also concerned about years of bribery, money-laundering, and the acquistion of of state-run banks. How can we restore justice? Some officials worry that pursuing these cases could negatively impact the economy. They cite these as excuses to shield their cronies in the business world. Any official who has the chutzpah to offer such transparently phony justifications for not investigating are underestimating the public on Taiwan and its sense of justice. In 1991, a number of liberal academics launched a campaign against the KMT's party assets. They said that 40 years ago the party's acquisition of assets and expansion of powers was unjust. In terms of scale, the KMT's party assets pale before the state-run bank assets swallowed up by the DPP's Second Financial Reform. In terms of timing, the KMT's party assets were acquired over a period of 40 years. The Second Financial Reform scandal erupted only four or five years ago. In terms of consequences, the KMT underestimated public disatisfaction over its tardy disposition of party assets. Public anger accumulated, and contributed to the first change in ruling parties. The body is not yet cold from the DPP's Second Financial Reform scandal. Yet trillions of dollars in state-run bank assets make the KMT's party assets pale in comparison. Any official who invokes "economic stability" as a pretext to overlook this injustice, is fooling only himself.

Finally, to ensure justice within the financial industry is much easier than disposing of party assets. The public has the right to review and correct the abuses committed by financial industry heads. It has the right to monitor the financial industry through such agencies as the Financial Supervisory Commission. Chapters III and IV of the Financial Holding Law detail the authority to revoke, punish, manage, and relieve officials of the financial industry. As far as the public is concerned, a banker who bribes officials and helps the Chen family launder money is unquestionably an obstacle to the normal conduct of business, hence unfit for duty, regardless of whether or not he bears any criminal responsibility. The legal precedent set by Article 54 also applies. The public has the right to review the Special Investigation Unit's pursuit of criminals, whether they are being sentenced too lightly or too heavily. The public cannot tolerate the bribery of officials in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars. Prosecutors are investigating the Chen family. That is the least society expects from them. The ownership of domestic banks and state assets has illegally fallen into the hands of financial consortiums. This is also an injustice that must be corrected.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2008.12.19
別輕忽二次金改釀成的不正義
中時社論

在扁案被特偵組提訴後，大家都預期檢方下一波的偵察與起訴重點，將會著重在二次金改等弊案。在這一波扁案起訴書中，已經出現了許多紅頂商人的名字。其中除一、兩位是建築商、土地仲介外，大多是金融機構負責人。他們在扁家貪瀆案中扮演的角色不一：有的送錢進官邸、有的搬錢進銀行、也有人進貢佣金或獻金、更有幫忙扁家在海外洗錢者。雖然這些送錢、搬錢、貢錢、洗錢的情節不同，但共通點卻是：他們都是當權貪汙者極為核心的「自己人」；若非如此，依常情判斷扁家也不可能把這麼見不得人、這麼機密的「錢」事，交給他們去處理。特偵組起訴書中指出，這些生意人涉案的刑事責任將另案偵辦。但撇開刑責不談，對於這些金控業者的行政責任、民事責任、社會責任、道德責任，所有人也都該關心。

有些生意人向特偵組或媒體表示，自己送錢進貢是因為受總統權勢脅迫、是懾於當局淫威而不得不然；但多數人恐怕不會接受這樣的辯詞。據報載，扁珍也曾暗示王永慶送錢，但正派經營的台灣企業之神顯然不理會如此的需索；而依常理判斷，甘願配合的一定是另有所圖。如有的送「佣金」是為了售地獲利、有的進貢後得到了復華金、有的匯錢恰好是在中信金企圖併吞兆豐銀行之際、也有協助扁家洗錢是因為曾受扁栽培擔任金控董事長等。

簡單的說，這些生意人自甘為官邸貪腐行為的共犯，背後都有著金額龐大的利益。匯款區區兩、三億，卻將上兆的公股銀行資產捧回家，無論怎麼看這都不像是「被脅迫」下的作為。當年，紅頂商人進出府邸、替扁家運鈔、為夫人燒菜、和小馬結交，換來在金融版圖上呼風喚雨的威風，氣燄不可一世，其企圖是司馬昭之心│路人皆知。以中信金插旗兆豐案為例，若非紅火案爆發，今天資產兩兆多的兆豐銀行就是財團囊中物。送個三、五億換回數兆資產的經營權，不難想像何以當時商人會搶著赴官邸。

其次，我們也關心過去數年靠著行賄、洗錢而併吞公股銀行的劣行，該如何回復社會正義。有官員擔心追究這些金融弊案會影響當前經濟，甚至以此理由而迴護他們的紅頂好友。坦白說，官員若是有這樣的白目邏輯，那就太低估台灣人民的社會正義觀了。還記得在一九九一年時，若干自由派學者對國民黨黨產展開圍剿，指出其四十年前黨產取得與坐大過程的不公不義。論規模，黨產雖大卻抵不上二次金改被併的公股銀行。論年代，許多黨產的併吞已經超過四十年，但金改弊案卻只是四、五年前的新聞。論後果，當時國民黨因循苟且的處理黨產，低估了人民對於社會正義的期待，逐漸醞釀起台灣人民的公憤，也間接導致了第一次政黨輪替。現在，金改弊端「屍骨未寒」，而公股銀行規模數兆更是黨產的好幾倍，若以為虛幻的「經濟安定」藉口就能使人民淡忘社會正義，那就真的是白目愚蠢到不行了。

最後要指出的是：金融業的回復正義，要比一般的黨資黨產容易得多。正因為社會對於操縱高財務槓桿金融業經理人的作為，有權力予以審核與導正，乃透過金管會這樣的政府機關予以監督，更對金融業定下種種管制規範。金控法的第三章與第四章，詳列了許多政府主管機關撤銷、處分、接管、解除職務的權力。從民眾的角度來看，一個賄賂官府、幫扁家洗錢的銀行經營者，不論其刑事上有無責任，絕對是「有礙健全經營之虞」的不適任經理人，是適用金控法五十四條的「範例」。特偵組就刑事責任的追究或輕或重，都必須接受人民的檢驗，而「行賄官府數億以取得國產數兆」的社會不正義，人民更是萬萬不能釋懷。扁家族受到刑事追究，那只是社會期待的一部分。銀行與國產所有權的不當流入財團，那同樣也是需要修復的社會正義。