How Much Corruption and Phony Campaign Contributions Must We Endure?

How Much Corruption and Phony Campaign Contributions Must We Endure?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 8, 2011

Legislator Huang Wei-tse has been accused of accepting 3.6 million NT in bribes from cemetery developers. The Tainan District Court ruled him innocent in the first instance trial. It ruled that industry leaders gave him "campaign contributions" rather than "bribe money." On the same day, the Supreme Court found Lin Chung-cheng, former member of the FSC, guilty of accepting 1.87 million NT in bribes from a securities firm, in the form of repairs to his cabin. He has been sentenced to fourteen years in prison. The discrepancy in sentences between the two cases, is like night and day.

The "Political Donations Act" has been in force nearly seven years. The provisions of the act clearly define what a political contribution is. But in legal and political reality, how politicians receive money and gifts from others, remains one giant gray area. This leads to almost diametrically opposite court rulings. Sometimes bribery is severely punished. Sometimes bribery is rationalized as "political contributions," enabling the defendant to escape criminal prosecution. This has led to inconsistencies in the administration of justice, and left people confused and troubled.

Consider the Huang Wei-tse case. He accepted money from a business firm on three different occasions. Of the three, only the third sum, which amounted to 2 million NT, coincided with the third legislative election. The 2 million NT check was deposited in his election campaign account. This could be considered in line with the legal requirements for political contributions. But the other two sums he accepted when no election was ongoing. They were inconsistent with the legal requirements pertaining to campaign accounts. They were cash transfers, in sums of 1,000,000 NT and 600,000 NT. The amount, the form, and the procedure were all in violation of the legal requirements of the Political Donation Act. Wu Den-yih received a half million NT in political contributions from industry during election season. This was deposited in his account according to the prevailing legal requirements. But because the sum was in cash, the half million NT was confiscated. He was fined 20,000 NT in addition. The judge in the first instance trial ruled that the sums Huang Wei-tse received were "political contributions," yet failed to hold him legally responsible. Was he deliberately pulling his punches? Or was he manipulating the law?

Also, the industry head transferred the funds through Huang Wei-tse's assistant. The first time 1,000,000 NT in cash changed hands. Huang Wei-tse received 600,000 NT. His assistant received 400,000 NT. The second time 600,000 changed hands. Huang Wei-tse received 400,000 NT. His assistant received 200,000 NT. If these were above board campaign contributions, why did his assistant "get a piece of the action?" The money was divided 60/40. Was his assistant "skimming off the top?" Was he being paid a "finder's fee?" This must be investigated thoroughly. It may not be passed off simply as "campaign contributions."

Lin Chung-cheng is not an elected official. He accepted gifts of LCD TVs and cabin repair costs from industry heads. He cannot write them off as political contributions. He accepted nearly 2 million NT in benefits. For this, he was sentenced to 14 years in prison. Huang Wei-tse accept 3,000,000 NT, yet got off scot-free. Lin can only bemoan his bad luck, for not running into that kind of judge. But what legal standards have such diametrically opposed decisions left society? Is the justice system nothing more than a game of Russian Roulette? It is nothing more than a matter of dumb luck?

Over the past year, a long string of court decisions have thrown open the doors to bribery in the guise of political contributions. They have blurred the line between between black and white. They have trampled over the dignity of the law. Two major problems are involved. One. Illegal gifts from industry have been characterized as "political contributions," and recipients have not been held responsibile for criminal conduct. Two. The perpetrators argue there was no "quid pro quo," thereby rationalizing bribery. This has indirectly promoted the phenomenon of the "rationalization of bribery."

Consider the most obvious example. Chen Shui-bian used his Second Financial Reform "program" to exort 600 million NT in bribes from the financial sector. Chou Chan-chun had the chutzpah to argue that Chen never exercised "presidential authority," and let him off scot-free. Former Minister of Transportation Kuo Yao-chi received a tea container filled with 20,000 US from an industry head. The physical evidence was incontrovertible. Yet he was acquitted on the basis that "there was no quid pro quo. The Huang Wei-tse case was the same. He admitted lobbying the Construction and Planning Agency. Yet the Full Court ruled that he lobbied in a "personal capacity" rather than "on behalf of the Legislative Yuan." It ruled that his lobbying had nothing to do with his legislative duties, therefore the money he accepted could not be considered a bribe. But if he was not a legislator, would the Construction and Planning Department take another look at the case merely because he asked it to? Can officials or elected representatives accept money, as long as the case is not directly under their jurisdiction? The Judicial Yuan must provide the public with an acounting.

If only one or two cases were involved, that would be one thing. But a spate of such critical court rulings have exposed official wrongdoing and official undermining of the nation's laws. How can one not be concerned? Lai Hao-min has been President of the Judicial Yuan for just over two months. He earnestly wants to establish an enduring system of justice. But his attempt to establish judicial integrity is being undermined by justice system officials with weaker and weaker commitments to the law. Does he really not mind?

The Judicial Yuan must clarify three issues. One. It must make a clearer distinction between "bribes" and "contributions." Two. It must prosecute illegal campaign contributions. Three. It must clearly define "quid pro quo relationship" and "official responsibility."

多少貪汙，假政治獻金之名以行之
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.01.08 01:27 am

立委黃偉哲被控收受墓園開發業者三百六十萬元賄賂案，台南地院一審以業者給付的是「政治獻金」而非「賄款」，判他無罪。同一天，前金管會委員林忠正則因收受證券業者為其修繕小木屋等之一百八十七萬賄款，遭最高法院重判十四年定讞。兩案用法及量刑差距之大，直如天壤。

「政治獻金法」實施至今將屆七年，雖條文中對獻金有明確定義和規範，但在法政實務上，政治人物如何收取外界金錢及饋贈，卻仍存在極大的混沌地帶。其中，又以司法判決認定簡直南轅北轍，有時對賄賂行為嚴刑重懲，有時又以「政治獻金」為「賄賂」開脫罪刑，造成司法天平的傾斜偏倚，最讓民眾感到困惑難平。

以黃偉哲的案件為例，他三度接受同一業者金錢，其中僅第三次的兩百萬元正逢立委選舉，以三張支票軋入其選舉專戶，算是合乎政治獻金的規定。至於另兩次，他均在無選舉的情況下收取金錢，不僅不符開立專戶之規定，且收取的分別是一百萬及六十萬元的「現金」，額度、形式及程序均違反政治獻金法規定。先前吳敦義在選季收受業者五十萬獻金，雖依法納入專戶，只因收取的是「現金」，不僅五十萬遭沒收，還追繳廿萬元罰金。在這種情況下，一審法官說黃偉哲收受的是「政治獻金」，卻又不追究其實質違法之責，這是故意放水，或是玩弄法令？

再說，業者是透過黃偉哲的助理交付金錢，第一次的百萬現金，黃偉哲收了六十萬，其助理取四十萬元；第二次的六十萬元，黃偉哲拿四十萬，助理取廿萬元。若是正大光明的政治獻金，怎可能發生助理「分一杯羹」的情事？如此三二拆帳的手法，是助理居間「私吞」，或是「牽線」之酬勞，必須查明就裡，不容以一句「政治獻金」含糊帶過。

林忠正不是民選官員，收受業者贈送的液晶電視及小木屋修繕款等，沒有政治獻金的藉口可用；貪了總值不到兩百萬元的便宜，換得十四年牢獄之災，比起黃偉哲收受三百萬卻無罪脫身，他只能恨自己運氣太差沒碰到那樣的法官。然而，如此南轅北轍的判決，將留給社會什麼樣的法律準繩？難道正義只是俄羅斯賭盤的遊戲，只看各人的司法運氣？

過去一年，多次司法判決以政治獻金之名對收賄者門戶大開，不僅模糊了政治清廉的黑白界際，更嚴重踐踏了法律尊嚴。其間存在兩大問題：一是把業者的非法饋贈說成「政治獻金」，卻又不追究收受者的違失責任；二是以「查無對價關係」為當事人開脫，間接推促了「收賄合理化」的現象。

最明顯的例子，陳水扁在二次金改收受金融業者六億多元賄款，周占春竟以金改「非總統職權」為其脫罪；前交長郭瑤琪收受業者裝在茶葉罐中的兩萬美元，事證明確，竟也以「無對價關係」獲判無罪。包括黃偉哲的案子，他坦承曾向營建署詢問過該案；而合議庭卻稱其以「個人身分」而非「代表立法院」關切業者陳情，與立委職務無關，故無法認定為賄款。問題是，若沒有立委角色，營建署會答覆他詢問個案嗎？如果這樣的邏輯成立，是否只要非直接職務所轄，官員或民代都可以任意收受金錢饋贈？這點，司法院必須向公眾說個明白。

若只是一二個案也就罷了，但接二連三關鍵性的司法審判，一再捅政府官箴的漏子，都在挖國家法律的牆腳，能不教人憂心？賴浩敏出任司法院長兩個多月，心心念念要打造能流傳千秋萬世的「司法園區」，但對於廉潔的城牆被司法人越削越薄，對於法律信念被恐龍法官越拈越輕，他難道一點都不在意？

司法院必須釐清這三個問題：一，就「賄賂」與「獻金」的分際畫出更清楚的界線；二，對於不合法的政治獻金，一律需依法起訴。三，對所謂「對價關係」與「主管職務」之認定，提出更明確的統一解釋。