Is TaiMed Really Not a Corruption Scandal?

Is TaiMed Really Not a Corruption Scandal?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 20, 2011

Summary: Tsai Ing-wen claims that the TaiMed corruption scandal is neither scandalous nor illegal. Her two claims are debatable. Whether the TaiMed corruption scandal is a scandalous or illegal is not something she can decide by herself. Is the TaiMed corruption scandal scandalous? Perhaps that is matter of opinion. Is the TaiMed corruption scandal an actionable criminal case? The Special Investigation Unit has yet to provide an answer. But politicians who adopt such ridiculous and arrogant postures regarding their own actions, truly are a blight on democracy.

Full Text Below:

Tsai Ing-wen claims that the TaiMed corruption scandal is neither scandalous nor illegal. Her two claims are debatable. Whether the TaiMed corruption scandal is a scandalous or illegal is not something she can decide by herself.

If the TaiMed corruption scandal involved violations of the law, it will become a criminal case. But even if it did not involve illegal acts, it could still be a scandal. According to the Ministry of Education Mandarin Dictionary, a scandal is an incident involving malfeasance or impropriety. Therefore the TaiMed corruption scandal is unquestionably scandalous. Whether it is an actionable criminal case remains to be seen, since it is still pending investigation.

Let us examine the facts of the TaiMed corruption scandal. When Tsai Ing-wen was vice premier, she personally authored the Biotech Drug Industry Regulations. Then, taking advantage of this ordinance, she personally issued a grant to TaiMed, aka Yu Chang, through the National Development Fund. Later, she invested Tsai family money in TaiMed, and served as its board chairman. Then, exploiting these same regulations, she founded the TaiMao Biotech Venture Capital Company. She sought one billion dollars from the National Development Fund, of which 875 million dollars was granted. The question we must now ask ourselves is whether this is merely a corruption scandal, or a criminal case?

First, assume for the sake of argument, that the TaiMed corruption scandal is not a criminal case. A vice premier wrote, directed, and acted in her own one woman self-enrichment show. She even involved David Ho and Ho Mei-yueh, and got them to use the machinery of state to bury the Nan Hua project. Does this not constitute a case of "malfeasance or impropriety?" Would this not be considered a "corruption scandal?"

Such appalling "malfeasance and improprieties" could take place within this "honorable" cabinet, Yet Tsai Ing-wen had the temerity to insist that the TaiMed corruption scandal was not scandalous. If she can get away with this, then from this day forward, any poliitical appointee can propose a Bill, then use the National Development Fund to set up a company, He or she can bypass audit procedures. His or her family members can invest their money. He or she can appoint himself company chairman. He or she can create a "venture capital company" and apply for a one billion dollar subsidy. As long as he or she frames her actions in euphemistic terms, then anything is legal. The entire nation's civil service can do the same. Can we really say the TaiMed corruption scandal is not scandalous?

Now let us ask whether the TaiMed corruption scandal should also be considered a criminal case. In other words, did it also involve illegal actitivity? The law most relevant to the TaiMed corruption scandal is the Biotech Drug Industry Regulations. But this "special law" is something Tsai Ing-wen pubicly acknowledges "personally authoring." She was personally responsible for the lack of revolving door restrictions, of restrictions against conflicts of interest, for its tax-free status, and for setting up a one billion dollar "biotech venture capital" clause. She complied with every one of these "special law" requirements. Under the circumstances, what good would it do to talk about legal violations? What would be the point? Clearly this was a law custom designed according to Tsai Ing-wen's specifications. Everything that would normally be considered illegal was predefined as "legal."

Many say Tsai Ing-wen stepped down as vice premier on May 21, 2007. They insist this dividing line absolves her of political and legal responsibility. This is indeed the "legal date." This is the date that would make her actions legal. Unfortunately it is not the "actual date." It is not the date that applies to her case in the real world. Tsai Ing-wen played a leading role in TaiMed, from beginning to end. On this point, no one has any doubts. The Nan Hua project was already two years old. It was on the verge of being approved. It was at this moment that Tsai Ing-wen suddenly and single-handedly promoted her Biotech Drug Industry Regulations. It was at this moment that she single-handedly established TaiMed, Does anyone actually believe that Tsai Ing-wen did not know that TaiMed would swallow up Nan Hua? That it would "hijack" it? Tsai retired on May 21. On July 6, Tsai met with Stephen Young. She publicly acknowledged that she had personally become involved the biotech drug industry, In August she sent a letter to the National Development Fund, seeking forty million dollars in start-up capital. How many days of gestation and run-in were required before the date shown on the documents? That is the gap between the "legal date" and "actual date." Tsai Ing-wen may not have imagined that she would step down on May 21, 2007. But she was making post-retirement arrangements for herself even when she was still in office. Could it be the retirement date was the date of her premiere? Could it be the script was already written? Otherwise how could events have worked out so well, without a single hitch?

At the heart of the dispute is Tsai Ing-wen's personal approval of TaiMed, TaiMed received 40 milion dollars in start-up capital from the National Development Fund, only three months after stepping down. Tsai Ing-wen was chairman of Yu Chang. Did she really not know that the "Yu Chang" company she headed was the very same company she personally approved -- TaiMed?

Whether the TaiMed corruption scandal becomes a criminal case depends on the legal evidence. Whether the TaiMed corruption scandal is considered a scandal will depend on whether one has a conscience and a sense of right and wrong. Is it a criminal case? Or is it "merely" a scandal? Tsai Ing-wen has failed to provide a satisfactory response to either possibility. Instead, she has the temerity to claim that all the attention is "killing the biotechnology industry," that the current administration is engaging in "political assassination." She is calling the pending investigation of her "a blight on democracy," She and her accomplices even hope to incite "Taiwanese outrage" and precipate an "ethnic" struggle over reunification vs. independence. The sole purpose of their insane demagoguery is merely to shift public attention awat from the facts around her legal gullt or innocence.

Is the TaiMed corruption scandal scandalous? Perhaps that is matter of opinion. Is the TaiMed corruption scandal an actionable criminal case? The Special Investigation Unit has yet to provide an answer. But politicians who adopt such ridiculous and arrogant postures regarding their own actions, truly are a blight on democracy.

宇昌案是不是弊案？
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.12.20

蔡英文說，宇昌案不是弊案，亦未違法。這兩種說法，皆多可待商榷之處，亦均非蔡英文自己說了就算。

宇昌案若涉違法，那就成了「刑案」；但縱未涉違法，也可能是「弊案」。據教育部的國語辭典說，弊案是發生缺失或不正當的案件。準此，宇昌案當然是「弊案」；至於是否「刑案」，仍待偵辦，迄今尚無答案。

不妨再看一看宇昌案的主體架構：蔡英文任行政院副院長期間，親自撰寫主導《生技新藥產業條例》，再依據此一條例，親批以國發基金開設TaiMed（即宇昌），後來又以蔡家資金入股宇昌（即TaiMed），並任董事長；再依據同一條例，自設「台懋生技創投公司」，又向國發基金請款十億元，核准了八點七五億。現在要討論的是：這樣的案子是否「弊案」？是否「刑案」？

先假設不是刑案。請問：一位副閣揆，自導、自演、自肥到如此地步，何況其間還涉及何大一與何美玥等「運用國家機器」封殺南華案等行徑，這算不算是一件「發生缺失或不正當的案件」？算不算是一件「弊案」？

堂皇內閣之中，居然出現了如此駭人聽聞的「發生缺失或不正當的案件」；但蔡英文說，宇昌案不是「弊案」。此說若欲成立，除非蔡英文敢說，今後任何政務官均可自擬一個《條例》，再用國發基金設置一家公司，並排除一切審核程序，以自家資金入股，自任董事長，又再創「創投公司」請款十億；只要她敢說凡此皆屬正當，全國公務員皆可如此，那麼，宇昌案就不能說是「弊案」！

再論是否「刑案」，亦即是否違法？本案主要的法律準據即是《生技新藥產業條例》，但這部「特別法」卻是蔡英文承認係其「親手撰寫的」；其中包括排除旋轉門、利益迴避、免稅，及設立「生技創投」請款十億等，均是依據這個「特別法」的規定。在這樣的情境下，談「有無違法」，有何意義？因為，從現今的事實來看，這儼然是一部依照蔡英文的身形「量身裁製」的法律，一切「不合法的」均已被剪裁成「合法」。

再者，一般均將蔡英文於二○○七年五月二十一日卸副院長職，視為其政治及法律責任的分界點。這也許是事後從「法律日期」來看的景況，卻絕非案件發展的「事實日期」。蔡英文在全案中始終居於強勢主導角色，此點無人懷疑；而南華案在進行已有兩年之久，於幾乎已經批准之際，蔡英文竟同步一手親推《生技條例》，一手親批設置TaiMed，若謂蔡英文不知道「宇昌吃掉南華」的「劫鑣事件」，恐怕無人相信。再者，蔡在五月二十一日卸任，於七月六日見楊甦隸時已言明將親自投入新藥生技產業，八月即去函國發基金要求撥款四千萬元開辦費。在這些公文書上註明的日期之前，需有多少日子的醞釀期及磨合期，這才是「法律日期」與「事實日期」之間存有的落差與疑竇。蔡英文也許沒想到她會在二○○七年五月二十一日卸職，但這卻完全不能排除一切均是早已對準了她卸任後的安排。莫非卸任只是上演日期，但劇本早已寫好；否則豈可能如此環環相扣，一氣呵成？

最核心的爭議是：蔡英文親手批定了TaiMed，而居然在卸任三個月後就代表宇昌（即TaiMed）向國發基金請撥四千萬元開辦費。蔡英文難道不知，她任董事長的「宇昌」，正是她親批的TaiMed？

是否「刑案」，要看「法律證據」；但是否「弊案」，則只須自問良知與廉恥。現在，蔡英文無論對「刑案」或「弊案」的質疑，均未充分答辯；卻竟然將此案導向「扼殺生技產業」、「政治追殺」及「民主之恥」，其同案夥伴甚至欲將之推向「台灣人的憤怒」的族群統獨鬥爭；但如此瘋狂操弄，恐怕仍是「轉移焦點不能改變涉案或涉弊的事實」。

此案究竟是否「弊案」，容或見仁見智；是否「刑案」，亦仍待特偵組給答案。但毫無疑問的是，政治人物以如此離譜及傲慢的態度面對並操作自己所涉的如此嚴肅的民主法治巨案，可真是「民主之恥」！