Taiwan's Society and Culture Have Never Condoned Corruption

Taiwan's Society and Culture Have Never Condoned Corruption
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 14, 2009

Former President Chen Shui-bian is once again teaching us something new. He's teaching us the meaning of "social and cultural crimes." The law books contain no such term. Nevertheless Chen Shui-bian's neologism has attracted wide attention. Chen Shui-bian admits what he did was wrong. But he insists that his wrongdoing was a widespread social and cultural phenomenon. Everybody does it, therefore it was no big deal. Besides, if one insists on punishing offenders, Chen argues, then he is hardly the only one guilty of such offenses.
Chen Shui-bian is adept at inventing new terms. He is even more adept at sensing the public mood. He is attempting to create an escape clause for himself. Ever since the Chen corruption case broke, he and his family have astonished the public with their creativity. Every time the evidence proved they were guilty of a crime, they would then confess to that crime, and that crime only. Chen Shui-bian's shrewdest tactic of course, is equivocation. In other words, "We are all guilty." His strategy is to apologize, but never admit wrongdoing. His strategy is to admit wrongdoing, but never admit guilt. His strategy is to admit guilt, but always drag someone else down with him.

When investigators from the prosecutor's office discovered that the Chen family definitely transferred funds overseas, Chen Shui-bian immediately admitted that he "did things not permitted by the law." Chen Shui-bian is a linguistic magician. He is a master of psychology. Sometimes his words must be subjected to textual analysis. At other times they must be be read as metaphor. That's because he is adept at word games. If someone "does something not permitted by the law," did he do something illegal? Did he do something wrong? He chooses not to say. The ambiguities he has created during his prosecution have increasingly become the focus of attention. He and his family have constantly been sending out political feelers and monitoring the public mood, hoping to evade prosecution.

The Chen Shui-bian family has chosen to drag its feet when confronting the justice system. But the evidence has snowballed. The Chen family preyed upon business people without regard for their political affiliation. Whether they were Blue or Green made no difference. The Chen family was an equal opportunity extortionist. Deep Blue businesses were swallowed up the way a lion devours his kill. The scale of the Chen family's money-laundering and corruption was massive. Naturally it risked something going awry. When more and more evidence of Chen family crimes surfaced, Chen Shui-bian belatedly conceded that "Everyone does it. I'm no worse than anyone else." He deliberately conflated the distinction between the State Confidential Affairs Fund and the Discretionary Fund. He has attempted to twist the meaning of President Ma Ying-jeou's Big Reservoir Theory. He has attempted to rationalize his own crime and simultaneously take the offensive. His moves are generating considerable controversy.

The logic of the term "social and cultural crime" in this context is quite simple. Even though we took other people's money, we did so reluctantly. We took it because it was the custom. Had we refused to accept money-filled "hong bao" and gifts, it would have been considered impolite. By extension, Chen Shui-bian alleges that the State Confidential Expense Fund was merely a supplement to the president's salary. He even alleges that due to his official position, his identity, and his status, that the receipt of gifts, benefits, and even cash was perfectly proper, that given social and cultural norms, no crime was committed. Those who feel Chen Shui-bian did something wrong, must examine our society and our culture for their complicity in corruption. Otherwise if they wish to convict Chen Shui-bian, they must also convict a whole slew of past officials as well.

First Chen argued, "Was Ah-Bian really wrong?" Then Chen argued "Was Ah-Bian the only one who did wrong?" Chen Shui-bian is undeniably a shrewd political operator. Is "accepting bribes commonplace" on Taiwan today? Is "refusing to accept bribes impolite?" If it is, then why have hospitals repeatedly ordered medical personnel not to accept gifts of cash from patients and their families? Why bother with anti-corruption legislation? After all, accepting bribes is the social custom. Is society on Taiwan really this backward? The Chen family's selling of official positions and accepting of bribes was not something that took place in the remote past, when the public was confused and the law was unclear. It was something that happened recently. The Republic of China has been on the road to democracy and the rule of law for a long time. Yet Chen Shui-bian is alleging, without blushing or stammering, that gifts of cash are perfectly normal. That anyone could seriously argue that corruption was worse during the KMT era, therefore it is unfair to prosecute Chen Shui-bian today, boggles the mind. Why don't the people who advance such arguments simply say that He Sheng was vastly more corrupt, and that by contrast Chen Shui-bian's corruption is small potatoes?

Society's concept of justice advances with the times. Current laws must reflect current standards. Past offenses must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law possible. One cannot use "People used to commit worse crimes" as a means of eluding prosecution for crimes committed today. Otherwise, every era will be forced to endure criminal conduct. Wrongdoers will simply argue "After all, wasn't this the way in the past?" Citing past reprobates to justify wrongdoing by current reprobates is just a little too convenient. Under such circumstances, would a nation still need the rule of law? Would social progress still be possible?

Taiwan has been struggling to rid itself of the negative custom of cash bribes and the culture of bribery. Such efforts may be inadequate. They may not have achieved the desired results. But the civil service system must strive for integrity. Today's society no longer permits abusing one's official position to enrich oneself. Chen Shui-bian's family and friends are guilty of corruption. They have been convicted and handed stiff sentences. Do we really intend to write off their corruption as nothing more than a product of our society and our culture?

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2009.09.14
社論－台灣的社會文化 從未縱容過貪汙
本報訊

前總統陳水扁又為大家上了一課，這一課叫做「社會文化罪」。儘管法律上並無此詞，不過，陳水扁提出的這個說法還是引起了廣泛的討論。按照陳水扁的意思，他承認自己是錯了，但這個錯是社會很普遍常見的文化現象，也就是說大家都是這樣做的，這樣的話也就不能算是什麼了不起的大過犯；再說，假如要定罪，那該被定罪的人又何止陳水扁一個人呢。

阿扁非常擅長創造名詞，更擅長捕捉社會情緒，為自己打造絕佳的脫困之道。扁案爆發以來，他和他家人的創意不絕如縷，每每令人拍案驚奇。除了「證據到哪裡才承認到哪裡」的精明之外，陳水扁最高明的招數當然就是烏賊法，也就是說「大家都一樣啊。」他的策略是可以道歉，但絕不認錯，可以認錯，但絕不認罪，可以認罪但絕對要拉一個壂背。

在檢調查出扁家的確把錢匯出海外後，陳水扁第一時間的回應是「做了法律所不允許的事」，陳水扁是個語言學魔術師、更是心理學大師，他的話有時需要按字面分析，有時又要意在言外地解讀，因為他非常會玩文字遊戲──一個人做了法律所不允許的事到底有沒違法，到底算不算個罪呢？他選擇不予說明，留下的謎團在扁案審理的過程中不斷成為討論的焦點，他和他的家人就在種種政治利益和社會氣氛下，不斷見縫插針地尋找生機。

陳水扁家族可以選擇用擠牙膏的方式面對司法，但證據卻會滾雪球。既然他們藍綠企業家葷素不忌大通吃，什麼人的錢都敢收，而且愈是深藍的企業就愈是吃定了一樣的獅子大開口，把洗錢、貪腐的戰線拉那麼大，日後當然就要承擔任何一個角落都可能出包的風險。當愈來愈多證據顯示阿扁集團的犯行時，陳水扁就說「大家都是如此，我沒有更可惡。」他刻意把國務機要費和特別費混為一談，挪用馬英九總統的大水庫理論，讓他不但得以保護自己，還找到出招攻擊的機會，拳勢還虎虎生風。

「社會文化罪」也是在這樣的脈絡下出現的說法。這個邏輯很簡單：就算我們有收人家的錢，那也是不得已的啊，因為這個社會不就是這樣的嗎，不收一些紅包、禮物，不夠意思也不禮貌；延伸來看，陳水扁不但指稱國務費做為總統薪資實質補貼是理之當然，就連基於職務、身分、地位等收到的饋贈、好處乃至於金錢，也在社會文化的認知和理解中，沒有不得體更談不上是犯了什麼罪；認為阿扁這麼做不對的人，要檢討整個社會文化對貪汙意在言外的縱容，或者至少要定罪阿扁，也該一起揪出前朝一干人等才對。

從「阿扁錯了嗎？」到「錯的又不只是阿扁」，陳水扁不愧是高明的政治玩家。如果台灣社會到現在還有如他所言的這種「收受紅包很平常，不收就不禮貌」風氣，醫院何必三令五申嚴格監督醫事人員絕不可以收病人和家屬的紅包，也沒必要訂定貪汙治罪條例，反正收點好處是社會風氣嘛。台灣社會真的到現在還是如此嗎？陳水扁家族被查到賣官、收賄之類的事情可不是在民智未開、法律不明的時代，而就是最近的事。台灣在民主法治的路上都已經走了這麼多之後，陳水扁還可以臉不紅氣不喘地說收紅包、饋贈這種事本來就很正常，而竟然也還有人可以全無是非地指稱國民黨時代貪更多，抓陳水扁一個人不公平，云云；持這類論點的人何不乾脆說和珅貪更多，陳水扁貪的算什麼！

社會的正義公平道德尺度的確是隨著時代前進的，現在的法律是什麼，當然就要按現行的規範執行，過往的過錯能追多少就要追多少，斷不能以「從前的人錯更多」來做為脫罪的遁詞，否則不是每個時代都奈何不了不法之徒了嗎，因為每個做錯事的人都可以振振有詞說「以前不是這樣！」要找到過去的渾球來支持現在的渾帳，可太容易了。這樣的話，國家社會還需要法治嗎、還有任何進步的可能嗎？

台灣社會一直在努力擺脫積習已久的紅包、賄賂文化，儘管做的還非常不夠、很不到位，但公務體系朝向廉能努力是明確的方向，現在的社會已不容許這種以職務之便收取好處的文化了；從扁親信涉及貪汙、被判重刑來看，難道我們還要認可一切貪腐都可歸咎社會文化嗎？