Tsai Ing-wen Cannot Evade Questions About TaiMed

Tsai Ing-wen Cannot Evade Questions About TaiMed
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 21, 2011

Summary: The presidential election is only 20 days away. The Blue and Green camps have begun bloody hand to hand combat, This may not lead to a lose/lose situation, but it will lead to voter disgust. But regardless, this election will determine the leader of our nation for the next four years, Can someone who cannot be trusted lead the nation? The ruling and opposition parties must live up to the strict standards the public has set for its national leaders.

Full Text Below:

A politician's most stringent test takes place during an election. That is when he or she is examined under a microscope by the entire nation. No candidate can avoid this close scrutiny of his or her conduct. This is true for the TaiMed corruption scandal. This is true for the Fubon shark fin soup banquet as well. Ruling and opposition party leaders competing for high office adopt certain attitudes during such scrutiny, Voters take into account these attitudes when casting their votes. KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou and DDP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen have revealed their respective strengths and weakness by the attitudes they adopted during such scrutiny.

Faced with fierce questioning over the TaiMed corruption scandal, the DPP responded by dredging up the shark fin soup banquet issue, an old issue that was resolved long ago. The DPP had nothing new to offer. Ma Ying-jeou responded calmly. He held a press conference. He sat patiently and allowed the media to question him, over and over again. Consider his attitude from the perspective of campaign strategy. Contrast this with Tsai Ing-wen's response to the TaiMed corruption scandal. Tsai's sole response was a statement saying she and her family did not profit illegally from TaiMed. As soon as she finished her statement, she turned and walked away. She refused to answer reporters' questions. Ma Ying-jeou's implicit message to the voters was: If Tsai Ing-wen has nothing to hide, why not clear the air?

Tsai Ing-wen angrily accused the Ma administration of using the machinery of government to harass her legally, and ruin her politically. But apply the same standards to both candidates. Surely no one has forgotten the recently concluded centennial celebrations? The show cost over 200 million dollars. CCA Chairman Emile Sheng stepped forward and responded to questioning by DPP, day after day. He voluntarily submitted himself to prosecutors for investigation. The prosecutors moved even more quickly in his case than they did in the TaiMed corruption scandal. Once prosecutors began questioning people and conducting searches, Emile Sheng voluntarily resigned. Throughout the process, he never uttered a single word accusing the DPP of electioneering, or the prosecutors of having ulterior motives for their investigation.

TaiMed was the Chen administration's major biotech project. Tsai Ing-wen went from being vice premier to board chairman of a biotech company. Since the vice premier was not the competent authority, she was not necessarily in violation of the articles prohibiting revolving door employment. But Tsai was up to her neck in the case. She participated fully in the authoring of the relevant legislation. She invested her family's money in the company. She definitely has a problem in terms of ethics and social perception. Government support for industry did not begin today. But public officials providing grants to private companies never became chairmen of the companies to which they provided grants. Public officials never owned a single share of stock in companies to which they provided grants. Still less did they invest their own family's funds.

The Tsai family sought funding from the National Development Fund. The change in ruling parties prevented the funds from actually being disbursed. After Tsai Ing-wen was elected DPP Chairman, she sold off her holdings. Clearly she understood that politics and business don't mix. But the Tsai family soon formed another company, also named TaiMed. Once again the family sought funding from the National Development Fund. This time the funding was approved and received. Even after Tsai Ing-wen stepped down as vice premier, she ordered National Development Fund officials to come to her residence and report on TaiMed matters, This, for the National Development Fund, was unprecedented, and of course, highly controversial.

Tsai Ing-wen insists that she did not violate civil service prohibitions against revolving door employment, because she sold her shares to private enterprise. She argues that the government did not actually disburse the funds, and that she did not actually profit from the transaction. But she could not explain her suddenly failure to avoid conflicts of interest. Perhaps she had no intention of remaining in politics. But if one returns to the political path, one can hardly excuse oneself by saying it was never a problem before. Now it has become a major problem. Why? Because now she is running for president.

If Tsai Ing-wen was not seeking high office. TaiMed would probably have remained unnoticed. But because she is running for president, she must subject herself to closer scrutiny than the average person. When Ma Ying-jeou ran for president in 2008, he had to endure the discretionary fund storm. He had to do ths same with the shark fin soup banquet. Ma Ying-jeou is merely seeking re-election. The DPP has been unable to dig up any dirt on him. So they dusted off an old issue and served it up again. Nevertheless Ma must patiently endure the ordeal, just as if he were starting from nothing.

DPP spin doctors have taken old news and maliciously presented it out of context. They have accused Ma Ying-jeou of twice attending banquets where shark fin soup was served. Was this merely an honest foul up, or a malicious attempt to frame Ma and discredit him? Ma Ying-jeou turned down Fubon's campaign contributions. Fubon's two company heads, one young and one old, made this clear, both inside and outside the courtroom. The only time Fubon ever made a campaign contribution to the KMT was in 2004. The receipt has been turned over to the court, Legislative Yuan President Wang Jin-pyng, who accepted the contribution, also stepped forward and explained. Yet the DPP's TV spots persist in rehashing this dead issue. Is this what Tsai Ing-wen meant by "negative campaigning?"

The DPP's negative campaigning is not confined to this. More recently DPP elder Frank Hsieh trotted out the old "Wu Den-yih scandal" tapes. Prominent TV spots cited it in an attempt to discredit the KMT. As far as the courts are concerned, the case is closed. Put simply, the tapes were faked, but they were not given to Chen Chun-sheng by Frank Hsieh. Hsieh claims the fake tapes led to his defeat in Taipei Mayoral Election. But Hsieh overlooks the fact that the gap between the winner and loser was too great. His defeat was not a result of the fraudulent tapes. The DPP's ads were of absolutely no benefit to Hsieh's campaign. Kaohsiung Mayor Wu Den-yih lost his bid for reelection that year as a result of the fake tapes. That was a real instance in which fake tapes determined the outcome of an election.

The presidential election is only 20 days away. The Blue and Green camps have begun bloody hand to hand combat, This may not lead to a lose/lose situation, but it will lead to voter disgust. But regardless, this election will determine the leader of our nation for the next four years, Can someone who cannot be trusted lead the nation? The ruling and opposition parties must live up to the strict standards the public has set for its national leaders.

面對宇昌案疑點 蔡英文不能迴避
2011-12-21中國時報

選舉是對政治人物最嚴格的考驗，在全民監督下，沒有人能得逃得過相同的道德標準檢驗。宇昌案如此、富邦魚翅宴案亦復如此，競逐大位的朝野政治領袖們面對檢驗的態度，也是選民列為投票參考的因素。就此而言，國、民兩黨總統候選人馬英九與蔡英文的表現，高下立判。

面對宇昌案的凌厲質疑，民進黨拋出法院已經結案的魚翅宴老案。因為毫無新材料，馬英九自可從容以對；不但舉行記者會，還好整以暇地讓媒體一再提問；從選戰策略的角度，這當然是要對比上周蔡英文為宇昌案出面說明的態度。當時，蔡僅簡單強調自己和家族沒有不法圖利，話說完不容媒體發問逕自轉頭就走。馬英九意在言外想提醒選民的是：如果沒有爭議，為什麼不敢好好的把疑點說清楚？

蔡英文痛批馬政府運用國家機器對她進行政治和司法追殺。如果從同樣的標準檢驗，大家不會忘記，百年國慶才結束，為了晚會耗資二億多，文建會主委盛治仁每天對民進黨的疑問出面說明，更主動將自己移送檢調。檢調的動作遠比宇昌案更快，接案後即已展開約談和搜索；盛治仁更主動請辭下台，但沒有一句話批評民進黨將此案炒成選舉議題或檢調的司法偵查。

宇昌案是扁政府執政時期的生技大案，蔡英文從行政院副院長卸任轉職為生技公司董事長，因為副院長不是主管機關，確實未必有違反公務員旋轉門條款；但是蔡在此案中，從主導立法、全面參與、到投入家族資金，的確有政治道德和社會觀感的問題。雖然政府扶植政策性產業非始於今日，但過去從無扶植者搖身成為董事長的案例，甚至主事者一張股票都沒有，遑論投入家族資金。

此案因為政黨輪替，蔡氏家族向國發基金申請並核准的資金並未實際撥下；蔡英文在當選民進黨主席後，也全面出脫持股，顯然她也知道政治與經營企業勢難兩全的道理。但是，宇昌向國發基金申請資金核准並撥款後，另以蔡氏家族名義成立的台懋公司確實也又向國發基金請款。蔡英文副院長卸任後，甚至要求國發基金官員赴她的宅邸報告相關事宜，就程序上也算創下國發基金的先例，當然有爭議之處。

蔡英文能解釋她未違反公務員旋轉門，由於她的持股是賣給民間企業，政府資金並未實際核撥，也無圖利；但卻無法解釋為什麼她一念之間，竟疏忽了在此案上理應利益迴避的關節。或許當時她無意繼續從政，但踏上政治之途，她就不能責怪為什麼當時沒問題，此時卻成為大問題，原因很簡單：因為她此刻競選總統。

如果蔡英文並未競逐大位，宇昌案很可能就無人再提；但她既要競選總統，當然就得接受較諸常人更嚴格的檢驗。就像馬英九於二○○八年競選總統，要接受特別費案、魚翅宴案的檢驗一樣；即使馬英九競選連任，民進黨找不出新題材批評他，挖出舊案，他還是得耐著性子話說從頭一般。

民進黨人把舊日新聞稿惡意掐頭去尾，指涉馬英九魚翅宴不只吃了兩次，這算是烏龍爆料還是惡意栽贓抹黑？馬英九拒絕了富邦的政治獻金，富邦老少兩位企業主都在法庭內外說明，富邦只在二○○四年給國民黨政治獻金，收據已呈法院，經手的立法院長王金平也出面說明，民進黨依舊質疑還大刊廣告，這算不算是蔡英文口中的「負面選舉」？

民進黨「負面選舉」手法不只一端。最近，民進黨大老謝長廷同樣拿出過去所謂「吳敦義緋聞錄音帶」的舊案，大刊廣告以此案做為國民黨抹黑的例證。此案就司法已經結案的情況，簡單講就是緋聞錄音帶確為造假，但非謝長廷交付陳春生，謝認為此案造成他台北市長落選，謝忽略了他在台北市長選舉得票落差太大，豈是一案能構成的？民進黨刊登此一廣告，對選戰其實完全沒有正面效益，徒然讓人回想當年吳敦義高雄市長落選，還真是因為這捲假的錄音帶。

選戰最後廿多天，藍綠無可避免的進入文宣肉搏戰，就算搞不到兩敗俱傷，也得搞到讓選民兩相厭惡。但不論如何，最終當選者將是未來四年國家領導人，一個不被人民信賴的人如何帶領國家？朝野兩黨都得正視選民對國家領袖人格特質的嚴格要求。