When Chen Tsung-ming and Shih Mao-lin Turn Up in Huang Fang-yen's Living Room

When Chen Tsung-ming and Shih Mao-lin Turn Up in Huang Fang-yen's Living Room
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 21, 2010

The public does not know whether Chen Tsung-ming leaked case information to Huang Fang-yen. But the Control Yuan had good reason to conclude that Chen Tsung-ming was happy to see Huang Fang-yen flee the country and go into hiding. After all, if Huang Fang-yen was investigated, he just might reveal the details of his association with Chen Tsung-ming, to the serious detriment of Chen Tsung-ming.
The articles of impeachment describe the February 26, 2007 Chinese New Years banquet at Huang Fang-yen's house in great detail. Control Yuan Member Li Fu-dian, a co-sponsor, said that Minister of Justice Shih Mao-lin and Prosecutor General Chen Tsung-ming attended the banquet. Together they appeared at the private residence of Huang Fang-yen, a suspect in the Chen Shui-bian and Wu Shu-cheng corruption cases. This was not merely questionable, it raised "suspicions of criminal conduct." Li Fu-dian concluded that there were clear grounds for suspicion.

Chen Tsung-ming's rebuttal was hardly convincing. He said "According to this logic, nobody is permitted to have contacts with those in power." But Chen Tsung-ming is the Prosecutor General. He is not just anybody. At the time Huang Fang-yen was a key figure in the Chen Shui-bian and Wu Shu-cheng corruption case. How could he be considered "just another person close to the ruling government?" Yet both the Minister of Justice and the Prosecutor General showed up in Huang Fang-yen's home, the same time that the Chen Shui-bian and Wu Shu-cheng corruption cases were making the headlines. How can this be possibly be classified as routine contacts with those in power?

Control Yuan member Chien Lin Hui-chung, another co-sponsor, said that "anyone who bothered to read a paper" at the time knew that Huang Fang-yen and Chen Shui-bian had a special relationship. They had special roles in Chen Shui-bian's corruption case. Chen Tsung-ming and Shih Mao-lin were even more familiar with the facts of the case than the average citizen. How could they not know who Huang Fang-yen was? The Chinese New Years banquet Chen Tsung-ming and Huang Fang-yen attended had already raised "suspicions of criminal conduct." Yet Chen Tsung-ming had the temerity to argue that "According to this logic, nobody is permitted to have contacts with those in power." He had the gall to feign innocence. This is both self-deception and deception of others. This is especially unforgivable.

That Chinese New Years banquet was perhaps the single most sordid political scenario in recent memory. It was perhaps the most shameful judicial scenario in recent memory. Add to this Bureau of Investigation Chief Yeh Sheng-mao's leaking of case information collected by the Egmont Group to Chen Shui-bian during the same period. The public can imagine how far the nation's justice system degenerated under DPP rule. The justice system had already lost its transcendent status. Even the "Three Heads" had been reduced to hatchetmen. The public believes the "Three Heads" covered up Chen Shui-bian's corruption. It suspects even the relationship between the justice system and the ruling government. It wonders why the High Speed Rail System scandal was prosecuted so haphazardly and why the focus was deliberately shifted to peripheral instead of central issues.

The "Three Heads" are responsible for the administration of justice. But by then they had become the president's accomplices -- tools for political domination and political infighting. Ironically, reports of Chen Tsung-ming's Chinese New Years banquet at Huang Fang-yen's house originated with then Minister of Justice Shih Mao-lin. Shih Mao-lin's report emulated Chen Tsung-ming's legal response. Shih Mao-lin's report naturally failed to mention his own presence on the premises. Chen Tsung-ming naturally failed to mention Shih Mao-lin's presence. The Control Yuan's impeachment notes that both of them were present. Leave aside the question of whether they are criminal suspects. Their reports alone are prima facie evidence of perjury. Are they qualified to continue serving as Minister of Justice and Prosecutor General?

It is rumored that the Control Yuan's impeachment of Chen Tsung-ming has provoked a "reaction from prosecuters at the grassroots level." Do prosecutors truly believe Chen Tsung-ming and Shih Mao-lin did nothing wrong when they visited Huang Fang-yen, just as the Chen Shui-bian corruption case was reaching full boil? Is it unreasonable to suspect criminal conduct in the Chinese New Years banquet incident? Is it unreasonable to suspect a connection between "imperial witness" Huang Fang-yen's flight abroad and Chen Tsung-ming's concern that Huang might turn around and implicate him? Is it unreasonable to conclude that Chen Tsung-ming's characterization of Huang Fang-yen as "an ordinary acquaintance" was unmitigated nonsense? The Control Yuan's impeachment was initiated only after the Chen corruption case reached a certain point. Did so-called "prosecutors at the grassroots level" really consider the impeachment interference with the judicial process? In fact the Control Yuan's impeachment helped rid the ranks of prosecutors of rotten apples. Yet so-called "prosecutors at the grassroots level" characterized the Control Yuan's actions as persecution of the virtuous. Is their characterization not just a wee bit dubious?

These self-styled "prosecutors at the grassroots level" are clearly a minority. Their perception is at dramatic odds with that of the public. Why don't these self-styled "prosecutors at the grassroots level" host a Chinese New Years banquet and invite all the key people in the cases they are prosecuting? They can assure the public they are engaging in "nothing more than routine contacts with ordinary people."

Chen Tsung-ming's attitude is no different from those of the typical criminal suspect. "You think I committed a crime? Prove it!" He is arguing that if there is no evidence that he committed a crime, then he cannot be impeached for attending a Chinese New Years banquet with Huang Fang-yen. Real prosecutors at the grass-roots level have encountered many suspects who talk tough but who have no leg to stand on. Does Chen Tsung-ming really consider his attitude following the commission of a crime something the public ought to emulate?

If the judicial system wishes to redeem itself, it must set an example for the nation. Shih Mao-lin, Chen Tsung-ming, and Yeh Sheng-mao are the "Three Heads" responsible for the administration of justice. Their conduct as individuals was questionable. Worse, they and the president were accomplices who undermined the nation's system of justice. Add to this triumvirate a fourth, Grand Justice Cheng Chung-mo, who helped the president lobby legislators. This is the worst example of an independent judiciary being undermined since the lifting of martial law. It is an example of the irreparable damage the DPP inflicted upon our nation and society during its rule. We still do not know whether members of the judiciary feel shame. They appear intent on inflicting material injury upon others. This is no longer a question of Chen, Shih, Yeh and their personal reputations. This is an indication that judicial reform has undergone catastrophic failure.

當陳聰明與施茂林出現在黃芳彥的客廳
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.01.21 03:22 am

國人不知陳聰明是否洩密縱放黃芳彥，但從監察院的彈劾文看來，若謂陳聰明應有樂見黃芳彥畏罪潛逃的理由，似屬合理的懷疑。因為，黃芳彥倘若進入偵審，一旦供出他與陳聰明的過從細節，恐對陳聰明極為不利。

彈劾文對二○○七年二月廿六日夜黃芳彥家的那場春酒，描述甚詳。提案監委李復甸認為，這場春酒，法務部長施茂林及檢察總長陳聰明，一同出現在扁案及珍案重大關係人黃芳彥私宅，非僅可議，更有「犯罪嫌疑」。李復甸的判斷，自是建立在合理的懷疑之上。

陳聰明事後的辯駁不足採信。他說：「若按照這個邏輯，豈不是任何人都不能與執政者身邊的人交往？」但是，陳聰明身為檢察總長，豈是「任何人」？而黃芳彥在當時已明確是扁案與珍案的重大關係人，又豈僅是「執政者身邊的一般人」？而法務部長及檢察總長二人，居然在扁案珍案大爆期間，雙雙出現在黃芳彥的家中，這又豈是「一般的交往」而已？

如提案委員錢林慧君所說，當時「只要看報」即知黃芳彥與扁家的非常關係與在扁案中的非常角色；而陳聰明及施茂林對案情內幕尤較一般國人清楚，豈能不知黃芳彥是何等人物？何況，陳聰明參與黃芳彥的那場春酒，已有「犯罪嫌疑」；如今居然又辯稱「豈不是任何人都不能與執政者身邊的人交往」，故作天真無辜狀，更是自欺欺人，尤是罪無可恕。

那場春酒，可謂是最骯髒的政治場景，也是最可恥的司法醜相。若再加上在同一時期調查局長葉盛茂將艾格蒙情資洩露給陳水扁；國人應可想像，國家司法行政這一塊在民進黨主政階段，已然墮落、沉淪、解構至何等地步？司法行政的超然地位蕩然，連「三長」都淪為政治僕役鷹犬；國人此刻已不僅對當時「三長」如何包庇扁案產生重大懷疑，甚至亦對當年整個「法政關係」也疑竇叢生。比如說：高捷案何以辦得如此雞零狗碎、避重就輕？

司法行政的三長，當時顯已成為總統藉司法為統治及政爭工具的共犯結構。可笑的是，陳聰明在黃芳彥家的春酒宴，調查報告居然是出自當時的法務部長施茂林之手；而施茂林的報告當然是照抄陳聰明的答辯書。施茂林在報告中不說當日自己也在場，陳聰明當然也不說施茂林在場。現在，監察院的彈劾文指出二人同時在場，姑且不論「犯罪嫌疑」，僅以二人在報告中說謊偽證，他們還有資格擔任法務部長及檢察總長嗎？

據說，監院彈劾陳聰明，引發「檢方基層」的「反彈」。國人要問：難道檢察官認為陳聰明與施茂林在扁案沸騰時應當赴黃芳彥私宅之約？難道謂這場春酒中有「犯罪嫌疑」，不是合理的懷疑？難道不懷疑「帝王證人」黃芳彥的逃亡，與陳聰明怕他在進入偵審後將他咬出有關？難道認為陳聰明事後故作天真無辜地將黃芳彥說成「一般交往」不是胡說八道？監察院的彈劾，是在扁案告一段落後才發動，然而，所謂的「檢方基層」卻認為干涉司法；再者，監察院的彈劾，其實是在為檢方清除害群之馬，所謂的「檢方基層」竟認為是殘害忠良。如此解讀，寧非怪事？

這些顯然是少數的「檢方基層」，若與社會認知出現如此嚴重的落差，何不相率與各位承辦案件中的重大關係人們，在即將到臨的春節舉行一場擴大聯歡春酒，並昭告國人：這只是「任何人與一般人的平常交往」而已！

陳聰明如今的態度其實與一般嫌犯無異，不外就是一句：「拿出我犯罪的證據來！」；若無犯罪的證據，豈能彈劾我與黃芳彥喝春酒？「檢方基層」看多了這類理不直卻氣壯的嫌犯，難道會認為陳聰明這種「犯後態度」，可以作為國人的示範？

司法界若要自救，必須建立正確的人物典型。施茂林、陳聰明及葉盛茂三長，非但其個人的言行可議，甚且已然與當時的總統一體成為重創司法正義的共犯結構（還有幫總統向立委拉票的大法官城仲模）；這是解嚴以後力倡司法公正獨立的大沉淪及大解構，也是民進黨政府對國家社會造成的難以彌償的傷害。倘若司法界尚不知引以為恥，反而竟有物傷其類的味道；那就不只是陳、施、葉三長身敗名裂的問題，而將是整個司法改革的解構與破滅。