More Than Mere Legal Maneuveuring

More Than Mere Legal Maneuveuring
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 12, 2009

Wu Shu-chen has chosen to admit partial guilt, or to admit guilt as a legal ploy. Either way observers are nearly unanimous about her legal strategy and underlying motivation. They have pointed out the many ways in which Wu Shu-chen is covering up and contradicting herself. Here we would like to ask a hypothetical question. Suppose Wu Shu-chen's testimony is true. Suppose she really didn't engage in bribery and corruption? Suppose all she did was forge official documents and launder money? Suppose Ah-Bian has been seriously wronged? Suppose the poor man was actually kept in the dark all this time? Suppose he knew nothing? Suppose he should never have been detained? Suppose Wu Shu-chen's account is true? That raises an interesting question. Namely, has this man really been our President for the past eight years? Has this woman really been our First Lady?

Chen's legal defense team has been striving to create an image. According to this image, former President Chen has no standing at all at home. Wu Shu-chen wears the pants in the family. Chen Shui-bian never asks how Ah-Chen budgets their finances, Therefore Chen Shui-bian was in the dark about the receipts from the State Affairs Fund, and campaign contributions by business consortiums. Assuming this is all true, then we have to ask, is this really the kind of person has been governing our nation for the past eight years?

No normal department head of a public institution, no normal chief executive officer of a private corporation, no matter how much he loved his wife, would turn the entire household budget over to his wife to manage. He would certainly not dare put his wife in charge of the budget for the department or company he heads. He would not certainly not dare permit his wife to collect invoices from the wives of subordinates and submit them to his department or company for reimbursement. He would certainly not dare permit his wife to meddle in official departmental or company disputes. He would certainly not take orders from her on how to run the department or company he heads. It is not even necessary to explicitly forbid such conduct, because since time immemorial the line between public and private has never been in doubt.

The First Lady is severely handicapped. Wu Shu-chen must be assisted in all her movements by family members. She is so frail that when issued summons to appear in court, she asked to be excused 17 consecutive times, for reasons of health. Who knew she had the time and energy to intervene in the Nankang Exhibition Hall construction bidding process, and to order the Minister of the Interior to leak the list of review board members? She was not the least bit shy about mediating disputes between wealthy consortiums. She directly intervened in the Lungtan land auction process. If that was not enough, she unblinkingly collected hundreds of millions in "campaign contributions" then transferred them overseas into dummy accounts under her son's name. The prosecution has indicted her on all counts. Wu Shu-chen has admitted to them. Are these things permissible for the First Lady? Can these things be cavalierly rationalized away as "campaign contributions?"

Now let's look at the State Affairs Fund. Whether one wishes to cite the "big reservoir theory," or to attribute the problem to obsolete practices, as long as the expenses are in fact "Presidential Office official expenditures," they can more or less be justified. But by no amount of rationalization can justify putting the First Lady in charge of collecting receipts, or allowing her to fulfill a role akin to Yu Wen's. No amount of rationalization can justify permitting the First Lady to collect invoices from the wives of wealthy cronies for reimbursement, then making them available to former President Chen. If everything was as Wu Shu-chen said, if she did not embezzle even a single dollar, then Chen Shui-bian and Wu Shu-chen owe everyone on Taiwan an explanation. The State Affairs Fund should have been directly remitted to the president for his use. Why did it have to first pass through the president's official residence? No matter how tolerant voters may be of former President Chen's pecadillos, this is one they cannot possibly tolerate.

Let's return to the root of the problem. How could a president who was ostensibly elected by over half the voters, who swore an oath to uphold the constitution, who was endorsed by a political party that trumpets its moral rectitude, sink so low as to allow his wife to assume official functions and exercise official powers. How could he turn the machinery of the State Affairs Fund over to wife? How could he be totally unaware of his own wife's brazen involvement in public works bidding, issuing orders to department heads to leak secrets, and mediating disputes between wealthy consortiums? How could he know nothing about his spouse's laundering of hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and jewels all over the world. During his presidency Chen lived under the same roof with her, day after day, for eight years. The public is being asked to believe he was kept in the dark all this time. In fact the ones who were truly kept in the dark are ordinary members of the public.

Wu Shu-chen's testimony must not be dismissed as legal maneuveuring. It must not be dismissed as an effort to help her husband and son evade prosecution. It must not be dismissed as a way to allow Ah-Bian to distance himself from these crimes. Even assuming he could, what would be the point? If the evidence shows Chen Shui-bian was aware of everything that was going on, then he was her chief accomplice. If the evidence shows Chen Shui-bian was completely oblivous to what was happening for the past eight years, then he was an incompetent fool. The only question in the public's mind is, which one of these is the real Chen Shui-bian.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2009.02.12
這絕不只是一場司法攻防
中時社論

姑不論吳淑珍是選擇性認罪還是技術性認罪，這兩天論者幾乎口徑一致集中在她訴訟策略與動機上討論，確也點出不少吳淑珍辯詞中的掩飾與矛盾，但我們在這裡倒是想虛擬地假設一下：假如吳淑珍的「證詞」全都是真的，她確實沒貪汙也沒索賄，了不起只有偽造文書、洗洗錢而已；而且假如大家也真的都冤枉阿扁了，這位可憐的總統其實一直全都被矇在鼓裡，什麼都不知道，打開始根本就不該關他的。假如吳淑珍交代的就是事實的真相，那麼誰都可以繼續追問一個有趣的問題：難道過去八年，這就是我們的總統？這就是我們的第一夫人？

替扁辯護的律師團，一直努力在營造一種意象：陳前總統在官邸中是沒地位的，一切都是由吳淑珍發號施令的，而阿珍要怎麼調度錢財，阿扁是從不過問的，也因為這樣，所有國務機要費的領用，所有財團大戶的進貢，阿扁都是一概不知情的，假如這一切也都是千真萬確的，那我們還要再問一次：我們就是被這樣的總統治理了八年？

一個尋常公家機構的部門主管，或是一個私人企業的執行長，就算個性再怎麼懼內，再怎麼疼愛老婆，把家中所有用度的支配權全交給太太管，也不敢膽大到把他擔任主管的行政事務費，全權交給老婆具領，還聽任其大肆蒐集貴婦團的發票報銷吧？更不會容許老婆介入公務糾葛，甚至聽任其在家中遙控指揮吧？這種分際從不需要法律規定，因為不論古往今來，「公私分野」早就是政治上毋庸懷疑的定律了。

身為一位重度殘障的第一夫人，吳淑珍進出都需要家人照顧，身體衰弱到出個庭還要請十七次假，這樣的狀況，誰能想像她竟能興致勃勃地介入南港展覽館的工程招標，直接要求內政部長洩露審查委員的名單；她也毫不避諱地介入豪門的恩怨調停，直接干預龍潭一筆土地的標售，這樣還不夠，她還理直氣壯的收下數以億計的所謂「政治獻金」，用人頭匯到海外存到自己兒子的戶頭中。這一切的一切，不僅是檢方起訴的，也是吳淑珍自己承認的，那麼這一切的一切，是身為第一夫人被容許做的事嗎？「政治獻金」可以這樣被定義嗎？

再說國務機要費，不論是扯「大水庫理論」也好，是歸諸歷史共業也罷，只要確實都是「總統府公務支出」，一切都還說得過去。但再怎麼擴張解釋，也不致容許拿著領據領出來全交由第一夫人處理，不僅由第一夫人扮演類似余文的角色，蒐集貴婦團的發票報銷，也透過第一夫人撥交國務機要費給陳前總統支用。假如一切都如吳淑珍所指陳，她一塊錢也沒Ａ，那麼不論陳水扁還是吳淑珍，都該給全台灣老百姓一個具有說服性的解釋，為什麼依法該由總統直接支用的國務機要費，非要繞道先經由官邸撥交？選民再肯定陳前總統的操守，也不可能接受這種做法吧！

現在回到問題的本源，一個受到全國半數選民託付的總統，一個曾經對憲法宣誓過的總統，也是一個標榜廉潔價值的政黨所背過書的總統，怎麼會離譜到將行使職權的國務機要費全交由妻子支配？又怎麼會對自己妻子公然介入公共工程發包、號令部會首長洩密、調停財團利益分配…，完全渾然無所覺？對自己每天生活在同一個屋簷下親人，不斷將幾億幾億來源不明的錢財珠寶搬到全世界去洗，也統統一無所知？如果陳水扁做了八年總統，這一切的一切他竟能全都被矇在鼓裡，那麼，感到不解的，該是老百姓吧！

吳淑珍在法庭上的證言，絕不能只看做是一場單純的司法攻防，也不只是她究竟能替丈夫及兒子攬了多少罪，更不是扁能不能藉由她的證詞進行全面的切割，坦白說，就算成功切割了又怎麼樣？如果最終證明阿扁知道這一切，那不必懷疑他就是共同正犯；假如阿扁八年一路走來，對這一切統統一無所知，那也不必懷疑，他簡直是昏庸到極點。問題的關鍵恐怕是，大家究竟相信哪一個才是真的阿扁！