Su Jia-chyuan's Plight: The Consequence of His Corruption in Pingtung County

Su Jia-chyuan's Plight:
The Consequence of His Corruption in Pingtung County
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 17, 2011

Summary: The DPP boasts of its contribution to Taiwan's democracy. But whenever it runs into trouble with the law, it immediately adopts an entirely different set of standards. It pretends that democracy does not require the rule of law. In recent months people have gotten a good look at the Su Jia-chyuan family. They have gotten a good look at the violations of law and abuses of power the Su family committed in Pingtung. The Su family's brazenness is mind-boggling. Yet the Pingtung County Government did nothing. For years, it covered up Su family crimes. To the Pingtung County Government, the rule of law and public authority are meaningless. This is merely the most obvious example.

Full Text Below:

The DPP boasts of its contribution to Taiwan's democracy. But whenever it runs into trouble with the law, it immediately adopts an entirely different set of standards. It pretends that democracy does not require the rule of law. In recent months people have gotten a good look at the Su Jia-chyuan family. They have gotten a good look at the violations of law and abuses of power the Su family committed in Pingtung. The Su family's brazenness was mind-boggling. Yet the Pingtung County Government did nothing. For years, it covered up Su family crimes. To the Pingtung County Government, the rule of law and public authority are meaningless. This is merely the most obvious example.

The Su Jia-chyuan luxury farmhouse scandal has been in the news for over a month. During this period, Pingtung County officials vigorously defended Su Jia-chyuan. They ignored outside doubts and official Council of Agriculture case files, They stonewalled, hoping the problem would go away. The most absurd development occurred when outsiders learned that the Su family had constructed an illegal metal shed in Pingtung City. The Su family hired workers and had it demolished it, virtually overnight. The Su family has been under investigation for tax evasion for years. When the National Tax Administration Bureau Chief in Pingtung City heard what the Su family had done, he laughed aloud and said: "If the crime scene has been demolished, and the previous tenant cannot be found, we can hardly prosecute." Bureaucrats are contemptible. But are there any bureaucrats more contemptible than this?

This metal shed in the downtown area was constructed by Su Jia-chyuan when he first became Pingtung County Chief. Over the past ten years or so, it has shown up sporadically on Control Yuan property declaration records. Not only was it constructed in Pingtung City, it was rented out to incense sellers. The Pingtung County Government watched as this metal shed repeatedly underwent changes. It repeatedly turned a blind eye. Where was the law? Neighbors knew this shop was being leased to others by Su's wife, Hung Heng-chu. Recently the media has published graphic details explaining the ins and outs of the case. Yet National Tax Administration officials lied through their teeth. They said "no crime scene, no prosecution." Are the officials who wield public authority merely asleep at the wheel? Or are they involved in some sort of quid pro quo?

Pingtung City officials say no one in the past ever reported the metal shed. Therefore they never checked the records. But do building officials act only when someone reports illegal construction? Aren't building officials expected to use their own initiative? Besides, Su Jia-chyuan's luxury farmhouse was reported repeatedly by members of the public over the years. But the Pingtung County Government merely issued fines and went through the motions. For years it helped him cover up his illegal behavior. It never urged him to do the right thing. County Chief Tsao Chi-hung lashed back at the COA. Had he devoted his time and energy to enforcing the law, the farmhouse would not be the focus of current public attention. It would not have become a sore spot for the DPP and for Su Jia-chyuan.

Back then Wu Tse-yuan and Cheng Tai-chi, working together, changed Pingtung. People referred to Pingtung as a "county ruled by gangsters." When Su Jia-chyuan took office, he put on an impressive show about cleaning up Pingtung County and ridding it of its stigma. As a result, Tsai Ying-wen and Su Jia-chyuan, two members of the political elite from Pingtung, eventually joined hands in their quest for higher office. They demonstrated their southern Taiwan charisma. Who knew it would lead to today's scenario? Su Jia-chyuan's corrupt rule in Pingtung involved not merely illegal conduct and material greed. It involved the abuse of power and the bullying of the weak. Pingtung was once a "county ruled by gangsters." It has now become a "county ruled by tyrants." Does the DPP still care to explain how much progress democracy has made under DPP rule?

People speak of Taiwan's "North-South gap." Su Jia-chyuan's example shows people how little the rule of law means in Pingtung. It is something people in the north cannot imagine. Just imagine. A private cemetery could be built on public land, Public grazing land could be paved with concrete and rented out as night market stalls. The stalls could be hooked up to electrical power restricted for agricultural use. A metal shed could be constructed on urban land. The owner could flagrantly evade property taxes. Compared to this, a luxury mansion built on agricultural land is probably nothing to the Pingtung County Government. The officials exploiting these gray areas include former Ministry of the Interior and Ministry of Agriculture officials who were members of the cabinet. Who would dare to defy these members of the nomenklatura? Su Jia-chyuan felt he had nothing to fear during the current scandal. The main reason was that these violations of the law were raised previously, but the scandal had already blown over. Su assumed he was "home safe." He miscalculated. This time he was a vice presidential candidate, subject to scrutiny under national standards, and not just Pingtung standards. This was another kind of North-South gap.

For years Pingtung has served as an important base for the Green Camp. The entire nation has been been given the chance to see what the Green Camp has been doing there. This is refreshing indeed. The Su Jia-chyuan scandal has stunned the public. It has allowed them to see another side of Pingtung. It has allowed them to see widespread political favoritism and indifference toward the rule of law. Pingtung is a major agricultural county. Its officials sat back and watched the wanton destruction of its farmland, water, and soil. Major flooding in recent years probably bears a relation to this.

Lest we forget, Su Jia-chyuan may have dismantled his metal shed, but his luxury mansion still stands. Will the Pingtung County Government classify the kumquat seedlings planted by Su Jia-chyuan family workers as "agricultural crops," and legalize his luxury mansion with the stroke of a pen?

蘇嘉全今日是歷任屏東縣府造成
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.10.17

民進黨一向喜愛誇稱台灣民主有多進步，但當自己遇上法治問題時，他們立刻換上另一套標準，彷彿民主不需要法治的支撐。近月來，人們看到蘇嘉全家族在屏東的種種違法、濫權行徑，膽大妄為到匪夷所思的地步；而屏東縣府多年來竟一路縱容、坐視和包庇，視法令和公權力如無物。這即是最明顯的例子。

蘇嘉全的豪華農舍風波沸沸揚揚超過一個月，這段期間，屏東縣府官員除了極力為蘇嘉全辯護，對外界的質疑和農委會的公文均不理會，以拖待變。最荒謬的是，蘇家在屏東的鐵皮屋被揭發是大違建後，連夜自行僱工拆得一乾二淨；對於其間涉及逃漏稅多年的問題，國稅局屏東分局長聽說現場已拆光，竟喜不自勝地說：「如果沒有現場，又找不到過去承租人，就無法追了。」官僚之顢頇可鄙，還有更甚於此的嗎？

這座鬧區鐵皮屋，在蘇嘉全就任屏東縣長之初即已興建，十多年來，在監察院的財產申報紀錄上忽隱忽現；但它在屏東市區不僅實體存在，還出租給他人經營香鋪。十多年來，屏東縣府眼睜睜看著這座鐵皮屋在那裡不斷變身，卻始終視若無睹；這是什麼法治？再說，街坊鄰居都知道這間店鋪是洪恆珠租予他人，近日媒體報導也都有圖文詳述來龍去脈；國稅局官員卻睜著眼睛說瞎話，說「沒現場就無法追」；國家公權力是讓官員抱著睡覺？還是用來交換利益的？

屏東市官員說，過去一直沒人「檢舉」這座鐵皮屋，因此從無查報紀錄。但違建的認定，難道只是以檢舉為要件，建設官員都不必主動出擊嗎？再說，蘇嘉全老家的豪華農舍，多年來不是一再經人檢舉嗎？但屏東縣府除了開出一張罰單，完成行政的虛應故事後，這麼多年來一直在幫他遮掩圓謊，並未督促他改善。事實上，縣長曹啟鴻如果把他反嗆農委會的時間和精力拿來落實執行，這座農舍何致被追打不休，成為蘇嘉全及民進黨的痛腳？

當年屏東因為伍澤元和鄭太吉變調的合作，被譏為「黑道治縣」；蘇嘉全上任後，施展作為洗刷屏東汙名，一度讓人刮目相看。也因此，蔡英文和蘇嘉全兩位出身屏東的菁英聯手角逐大位，得以一展南台魅力。誰知，今天布幕逐一揭開，蘇嘉全經營屏東的真相卻是臭不可聞，除了違法、貪婪，還充滿濫權、欺壓的情節。屏東從過去的「黑道治縣」，變成今天的「白道治縣」，在民主里程上究竟有多少進境，請民進黨好好向選民解釋一番吧！

要談台灣的「南北差距」，從這次蘇嘉全的例子，人們看到了屏東法治的鬆弛狀態，那是北部人無法想像的事。試想，既然私人墓園可以蓋到公有土地上，既然農牧地可以鋪上水泥經營夜市收租、卻還接上農用電力，既然市區土地可以公然興建違建鐵皮屋還漏稅出租；那麼，在屏東縣府眼中，在農地上興建豪宅，恐怕真算不上什麼了不起的罪惡。更何況，在這些灰黑色地帶遊走的，是一個曾任內政、農業兩部的內閣大臣，誰敢動這樣穿了朝服的「白道」？這次風波，蘇嘉全之所以表現得有恃無恐，主要是這些違法情事先前在地方已被炒過一回，他自認已「安然過關」；唯一失算的是，他這次選的是副總統，他必須接受全國民眾以有別於屏東的標準重新檢驗。那又是另一種南北差距。

這些年，屏東作為綠營的重要基地，確有讓全國耳目一新的發展及能見度。但從這次蘇家風波，人們也愕然驚見屏東的另一面，包括嚴重的行政偏袒不中立和與法治的不作為，作為農業大縣卻坐視農田及水土任意破壞。近年屏東多次大淹水，恐怕與此不無關係。

更別忘了，蘇嘉全拆了鐵皮屋，但他的豪宅都還昂然矗立在那裡。屏東縣府該不會認定蘇家僱工趕種的金桔苗即等於「有耕作事實」，就大筆一揮認定為合法了吧？