Ah-Bian Does Not Measure Up to Roh Moo-hyun

Ah-Bian Does Not Measure Up to Roh Moo-hyun
China Post editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 22, 2009

Former South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun, amidst suspicions of bribery, lept off a cliff and committed suicide. He came from a poor family. He studied hard to pass the bar exams. He became a human rights lawyer and champion of clean government. His job performance while in power was mediocre. It went from good to bad. After he stepped down corruption scandals erupted. Because his wife and children demanded bribes from businessmen while he was in office, they became subjects of investigation. He says he was unaware that his family members extorted bribes. But he publicly said he could not face the public. He deeply regretted disappointing his fellow countrymen, and eventually chose suicide.

Roh Moo-hyun and Chen Shui-bian are similar in so many ways, making it difficult not to make comparisons. But no matter how similar their stories may be, one cannot deduce from Roh Moo-hyun's corruption whether Chen Shui-bian was also guilty of corruption.

Criminal cases must be turned over to the trial courts for judgment. The behavior of Chen Shui-bian and his family in the wake of the scandals have inevitably led the public to arrive at certain conclusions about whether Chen Shui-bian is guilty of corruption. Nevertheless we insist on upholding the principle of the presumption of innocence. We respect the judgment of the courts, and refuse to make rash judgments.

But we cannot deny that Roh Moo-hyun's feelings of remorse and decision to commit suicide, have held up a mirror to our own former head of state and his attitude while confronting his own corruption scandals.

We feel regret and sadness over Roh Moo-hyun' decision to end his own life. We would never encourage anyone to follow his example. But we must point out that Roh Moo-hyun's suicide has nothing to do with the administration of justice. It was purely a political and moral gesture. The public has long looked forward to the emergence of this sort of political ethics on Taiwan, but it has never made an appearance, leaving the public deeply disappointed.

President Chen Shui-bian left office in August of last year. Because he was unable to hide his overseas money-laundering, he confessed to committing illegal acts, and offered a public apology. This led to brief bout of criticism by the Green Camp. But the scope of the scandal continued to expand. The amount of money involved was appalling, and left Roh Moo-hyun far behind. Although the scandal became worse and worse, Chen Shui-bian's expression of remorse vanished like a puff of smoke. He maintained repeatedly he was innocent, and a victim of political persecution. Chen Shui-bian and Roh Moo-hyun were indeed quite different.

The Democratic Progressive Party organized a May 17 protest march. It took to the streets to denounce Ma Ying-jeou. It exercised the right of opposition parties to express dissent. What the public on Taiwan noted with a cold eye however, was the complete absence of DPP criticism of Chen Shui-bian's money-laundering scandal. On the contrary, Chairman Tsai Ing-wen accused the ruling KMT of violating Chen Shui-bian's human rights, in order to humiliate the Democratic Progressive Party. Whether the court's taking of Chen Shui-bian into custody constitutes an infringement of human rights is a serious issue that merits scrutiny. But whether Chen Shui-bian was taken into custody on orders from the ruling administration is a different matter entirely.

The evidence of Chen administration money-laundering is overwhelming. He established a vast number of overseas accounts. The amount of wealth he accumulated during his eight years in power is no secret. No evidence exists that ruling KMT officials have engaged in political persecution. Green Camp representatives accuse the ruling KMT of manipulating the judiciary and engaging in political persecution. They make unfounded accusations, but offer no evidence. As to how Ah-Bian, Ah-Cheng, and their children moved such vast sums of "campaign contributions" overseas, they remain silent. Contrast the two, and one is bound to find their allegations of political persecution and human rights violations utterly unconvincing.

Suppose the situation were reversed. Suppose Ma Ying-jeou had acquired vast sums of campaign contributions, or set up overseas accounts containing vast sums of money. Would the Green Camp criticize such abuses? Whenever the Green Camp utters the words "clean government," its political and moral double standards have opened it up to ridicule. The Presbyterian Church's accusation that the Democratic Progressive Party has failed to reflect upon Chen Shui-bian's mistakes is not without reason.

What about Chen Shui-bian himself? He has cited his illness, his medical treatment, and written books to accuse the courts of political persecution. His most recent tactic has been to fire his defense counsel, and refuse to talk with the public defender. This of course is his right as a criminal defendant. But isn't his strategy of forcing a showdown with the courts unbecoming of an attorney at law and an officer of the court, not to mention a former head of state? Chen Shui-bian may not act as if he doesn't care. But anyone in the know, must have some feelings about the matter.

A former head of state must face justice as a result of his money scandals. Instead he has given up his rights of as the accused to a legal defense. He has done so in defiance of common sense, for the sake of political posturing. Is he intentionally attempting to create enmity between himself and the court? Has he truly been wronged and helpless to seek legal redress? Or is he all too aware of his own guilt and imminent conviction, and therefore establishing a preemptive claim to political persecution? Has he completely lost his political and moral compass? Does he really expect the world to believe he is fighting for justice and the lofty ideal of human rights? How much political legitimacy does he still have? How many people will actually believe him?

No matter what attitude Chen Shui-bian assumes as he faces justice, the court's ruling, his guilt or innocence, his sentence light or heavy, will be subject to close scrutiny by the public, in accordance with the rule of law.

Preventing the abuse of power by political leaders attempting to enrich themselves and undermine the body politic by punishing them after they commit a crime is hardly the ideal solution. The ideal solution is to increase accountability by forcing politicians to demonstrate political integrity and abide by moral standards, by demanding that the ruling and opposition parties share responsibility. Chen Shui-bian does not measure up to Roh Moo-hyun. Let's hope that does not mean that Taiwan does not measure up to South Korea!

中時電子報 新聞
新聞速報　2009.05.25
扁不如盧 希望不代表台不如韓
【本報訊】

收賄醜聞纏身的南韓前總統盧武鉉，跳崖自殺身亡。他出身貧寒，發憤苦讀通過司法考試，旋以人權律師提倡清廉政治享名。執政時政績平平，先盛後衰，卸任後爆發貪汙醜聞，因妻兒近親於其任內向商人索賄，引起調查，他聲稱對家人收取錢財並不知情，但公開表示無顏面對國民，讓國人失望而深感抱歉，終究走上自殺的悲劇。

盧武鉉與陳水扁，有太多相似之處，很難不引起聯想比擬。但故事情節不論如何相似，總不能從盧武鉉究竟有無貪汙推論陳水扁有無貪汙。

刑事刑法案件，畢竟要交給負責審判的法院做最後認定，國人目睹陳水扁及其家人於案發後種種反應，即使不免對於陳水扁是否貪汙自有判斷，我們仍願堅持法律上無罪推定的原則，尊重法院裁判而不妄下斷語。

但是不容否認，盧武鉉悔恨交集的自盡，正是對照台灣卸任元首以什麼態度面對貪腐醜聞的一面明鏡。

我們為盧武鉉選擇自盡以謝感到惋惜與悲哀，也絕不鼓勵任何人加以效法；然而必須指出，盧武鉉的自盡，展現了一種與司法審判無關，純屬政治道德上的自我批判，這種政治倫理態度在台灣一直被期待卻未出現，令人自歎不如。

陳水扁曾經在去年八月總統卸任後，為了海外洗錢帳戶無法隱瞞而自承做了法律上不許可的事，一度向國人公開道歉，事後也曾短暫引發綠營的批判。可是，之後弊端醜聞愈大愈多，牽涉金額駭人，盧武鉉也瞠乎其後。案件內情雖然愈捅愈多，其自我反省卻有如曇花一現，不斷呈現的則是阿扁無罪而受盡政治司法迫害的臉孔。陳水扁與盧武鉉，確是大不相同！

民進黨舉辦五一七遊行上街嗆馬，行使在野黨的異議權利，台灣人民所冷眼觀察的，則是民進黨對於阿扁洗錢醜聞噤若寒蟬的批判缺席。蔡英文主席近日還大力批評對手藉著司法侵犯阿扁人權以羞辱民進黨。法院羈押阿扁迄今是否侵犯阿扁人權確實該嚴肅檢討對待，但是法院羈押阿扁是否受到執政者指使，則是不同的問題。

相較於陳府聚斂洗錢已知事證的疑雲重重，設置海外帳戶之多，在位八年積累之鉅，不是祕密，執政者指使法院從事政治迫害的指控，其實缺乏證據。綠營人士對於執政者控制司法、實施迫害，若可繪聲繪影，完全不需要證據；對於扁珍及其子女，如何可能有如此鉅額的政治獻金搬移海外的事實，卻是諱莫如深。兩相對照，必將使其任何司法人權的政治指控，失去說服力。

異地而處，假若是馬英九使用鉅額政治獻金設置海外帳戶，綠營將會以何種政治力量給予批判？失衡的雙重政治道德標準，實已使得民進黨今天在任何場合以「清廉」二字自許，都彷彿是惹人訕笑的自我嘲諷。長老教會指責民進黨未能表態反省阿扁犯的錯誤，不為無故。

陳水扁本人呢？稱病、就醫、出書的政治手段，嗆聲司法從事政治迫害；最近的新招則是解除辯護律師的委任，拒與公設辯護人接談，這當然都是他身為刑事被告自由選擇如何應訴的權利，但是不惜與法院決裂的策略行徑，是否有失律師政治家應有的專業水準？是否符合卸任元首應有的政治高度？陳水扁本人可否毫不在意，識者必不至於無所感覺。

卸任元首因自己的金錢醜聞而面對司法審判時，以不合社會常理的政治姿態放棄刑事司法被告的防禦權利，有意自陷於必與法院為敵的極端處境，究竟是否真是出自有冤難伸的無奈，還是自知難逃有罪判決，遂要以預先鋪設司法政治迫害說辭的政治伎倆？完全失去了政治道德上的自我批判能力，卻要世人以為他是在實現爭取司法人權的崇高理想，能有多少政治正當性？有多少人會真的相信？

不管陳水扁用什麼態度面對司法審判，法院對他的判決無論是有罪無罪，判輕判重，其實都必然會遭到社會輿論使用高度的法治標準加以檢驗。

用司法加施事後制裁來防範政治領袖濫權自肥，穢亂民主，其實只是治標的下策；提昇政黨政治中問責對手也反省自我的政治清廉道德標準，要求朝野共信共守，才是治本的上策。陳水扁不如盧武鉉，希望不代表台灣不如南韓！