Wang Jin-pyng and Chen Shui-bian: Similarities and Differences

Wang Jin-pyng and Chen Shui-bian:
Similarities and Differences
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
September 13, 2013

Summary: The Wang case is a major case. Oversights regarding the details are certain to occur. But if a Speaker of the Legislative Yuan peddles influence, he must be removed from office. There is no room for dithering. The handling of the Wang case has reached a certain stage. But as in the Chen case, the truly adverse consequences concerned the inversion of right and wrong among the public. This incident coming to light has revealed the ugly undersides of both the KMT and the DPP.

Full text below:

The Chen Shui-bian corruption case and the Wang Jin-pyng Chen influence peddling case are different. But they are similar in certain respects. Neither of the two men were willing to admit to their crimes. Both chose to hijack the political system and incite social divisions in order to escape justice. Both men forced the public to wage fierce debates over political justice. The two cases left an impact on society, not because of the cases themselves, but because they inverted right and wrong among the public. 

Before we tackle this issue, an explanation is in order. The facts in the Chen Shui-bian corruption case and the Wang Jin-pyng judicial influence peddling case are crystal clear. This newspaper has reported in depth on the evidence in the two cases before. Therefore we will not repeat ourselves here.

A corrupt president must be prosecuted. A speaker of the legislature who peddles influence forfeits his right to remain in office. Some think that a corrupt president need not be prosecuted. Or they think Chen Shui-bian was not guilty of corruption. Some think that a speaker of the legislature who peddles influence may remain in office. Or they think that Wang Jin-pyng was not guilty of influence peddling. That is not what we think.

The Wang and Chen cases differ in their seriousness. But they are similar in certain respects. Both deny wrongdoing. Wang denies engaging in influence peddling. Chen denies engaging in corruption. In other words, Chen has not argued that "I may have embezzled funds, but I should nevertheless not be prosecuted." Chen argued that the funds were "political contributions" and that they constituted a "Fund for the Founding of the Taiwan Nation." Wang has not argued that "I may have peddled influence, but I should nevertheless be able to remain Speaker of the Legislative Yuan." Wang argued that he was concerned about the abuse of power in a case under appeal, and that he was not peddling influence in the Ker Chien-ming corruption case. Wang and Chen denied wrongdoing. Their denials can be disproven. They know that corruption must be prosecuted, and that influence peddling by the Speaker of the Legislative Yuan cannot be tolerated.

The two cases generated major shockwaves, mainly because Wang and Chen refuse to admit what they did. This offers their supporters convenient rationalizations. After all. their supporters have no desire to say "I support corruption. I support influence peddling." They prefer to say "I support Taiwan independence. I support those who toil without rewards." The two cases have been or are being handled. Chen has been prosecuted. Wang Jin-pyng's party membership has been revoked. But social divisions remain. Conversely, Chen Shui-bian could have confessed to embezzlement and calmly accepted his punishment. Wang Jin-pyng could have admitted that his influence peddling was wrong and resigned on his own initiative. Society as a whole would not be so confused about right and wrong. The problem is that neither of the men are willing to admit doing wrong. They prefer to hijack the political system, incite social divisions, and invert right and wrong in order to escape prosecution.

The Wang case is more complex than the Chen case. In an unguarded moment, Chen Shui-bian admitted that he was "guilty of doing what the law does not allow." He resigned his party chairmanship and later his party membership as well. These were part of an attempt to ease political pressure. When the Chen trial began, Chen Shui-bian was no longer president. Political maneuvering inside and outside the courtroom had powerful repercussions. But by then Chen was no longer either a party member or a government official. The repercussions did not impact the normal functioning of government. Wang Jin-pyng by contrast, is currently the well connected Speaker of the Legislative Yuan. His case directly impactsd the workings of the legislature and the constitutional and political structure. Wang Jin-pyng's party membership has been revoked. Yet he has assumed a combative posture. He pretends that it is all business as usual, and that he is still the Speaker of the Legislative Yuan. He even seized control of the Legislative Yuan Correspondence Office. As we can see, Wang Jin-pyng has taken the political system hostage. He has incited social divisions. The impact of his actions are every bit as serious as Chen Shui-bian's. For the most part, the Chen case merely intensified Blue vs. Green divisions. The Wang case has precipitated not only Blue vs. Green divisions, but even divisions within the Blue camp. Such divisions could even lead to a showdown between a Lien, Soong, DPP alliance on one side, and Ma Ying-jeou on the other.

If a speaker of the legislature peddles influence, he can no longer lawfully remain in office. What ought to be debated now, is how Wang should be dealt with, and what sort of language should apply.

Huang Shi-ming dealt with the matter by holding an "administrative inquiry" rather than a "criminal investigation." He may have been skating on the edge of the law. But he was still within the law. He probably made the right choice. A "criminal investigation" would have necessitated a subpoena. It would have posed the question whether to begin a lengthy prosecution. It would have posed the question of how to deal with a sitting speaker of the legislature and the chief convener of the DPP legislative caucus. These would have been practical impossibilities. Proceeding heedlessly would have exacted an unimaginable social cost. An "administrative investigation" enabled the Party Disciplinary Committee to deal with the matter. This dramatically reduced the social impact of the scandal. Accusations of "first convict, then try" have no merit. After all, this was a party discipinary procedure, not a judicial procedure. For example, Lin Yi-shi has been expelled from the party, but his case has yet to be tried in a court of law.

The laws pertaining to major cases such as a speaker of the legislature peddling influence appear to be inadequate and filled with loopholes. Speaker of the Legislative Yuan Wang Jin-pyng peddled influence. If he is prosecuted in the courts, the social cost will be too high. Expecting the Legislative Yuan to discipline him is a pipe dream. The KMT Party Constitution includes the "Hsu Shu-po Provision." It enabled President Ma Ying-jeou to simultaneously serve as party chairman. Otherwise, the president could have covered up the Wang Jin-pyng influence peddling scandal. The KMT Disciplinary Committee could have refused to act. Wang Jin-pyng might have agreed to a slap on the wrist from the courts. He would then cling to his position as speaker of the legislature. Would this not have resulted in an inconceivable constitutional crisis?

The Wang case is a major case. Oversights regarding the details are certain to occur. But if a Speaker of the Legislative Yuan peddles influence, he must be removed from office. There is no room for dithering. The handling of the Wang case has reached a certain stage. But as in the Chen case, the truly adverse consequences concerned the inversion of right and wrong among the public. This incident coming to light has revealed the ugly undersides of both the KMT and the DPP.

公道寧論：王金平案與陳水扁案之異同
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.09.13 03:13 am

陳水扁案與王金平案的性質不同，但其相同處是兩人對自己的涉案行為皆不認錯，且都以挾持政局、撕裂社會的手法欲求翻身脫困，遂導致整個社會陷入對政治正義的激烈爭議。兩案對社會的主要衝擊皆未必在案件本身，而是在案發後引爆的黑白不分與是非錯亂。

在進入本題之前必須說明，本文認為，陳水扁之涉及貪汙及王金平之介入司法關說，皆是十分明確的事實；本報前此對兩案的證據皆有深論，在此不贅述。

我們認為：貪汙的總統應當受到司法制裁，涉入司法關說的立法院長即失去留任院長的正當性。亦即，若有人認為總統貪汙不必制裁（或陳水扁根本未貪汙），及立法院長關說司法仍可留任（或王金平根本未關說），皆非本文的主張。

王扁兩案輕重有別，但最大共同點是，二人皆否認涉案的行為。王否認關說，扁否認貪汙。亦即，扁未主張：「縱使我貪汙，但我不接受制裁！」（扁辯稱：是「政治獻金」，是「台灣建國基金」）王亦未主張：「縱使我關說，但我仍要留任立法院長！」（王辯稱：是關心濫權上訴通案，而非關說柯建銘個案）。王扁的否認涉案行為可以反證，他們亦知：貪汙須受制裁，立法院長關說司法即無留任之餘地。

兩案後續均引爆嚴重政潮，主要皆因王扁不承認涉案行為；這也使得其支持者獲得了自我合理化的藉口，因為他們都不想被視為「我挺貪汙／我挺關說」，而均希望被視為「我挺台獨／我挺沒有功勞也有苦勞」。因此，兩案雖在體制上皆已處理（扁送法辦，王金平撤銷黨籍），但社會上的紛擾與撕裂仍在。反過來說，倘是陳水扁承認貪汙犯行而平靜接受司法裁判，王金平亦在承認關說有錯後自行辭去院長職務，則整個社會對是非黑白的見解即不致錯亂至此。如今的問題是：兩人皆不認錯，皆不惜以挾持政局、撕裂社會、顛倒黑白的手法試圖翻身脫困。

王案尤有較扁案複雜之處。陳水扁尚曾承認「犯了法律上不允許的事」，並在總統任內辭去黨主席兼職，後又自行退黨，這皆在某種程度上試圖緩解對政局的壓力；至扁案進入訴訟之時，陳水扁已卸總統職，縱使其法庭內外的操作引爆強烈政潮，但畢竟他已是黨政體制外的在押之人，其效應尚能區隔在政府體制的正常運作之外。但王金平卻是人脈深厚的現任立法院長，本案效應直接衝擊到圍繞著立法院的國家憲政運作；但看王金平在經考紀會撤銷黨籍後，仍擺出一副繼續抗爭且仍將照舊執行院長職權的姿態（甚至挾制立法院函文收發窗口），即可見王金平挾持政局及撕裂社會的能量未必小於在押的陳水扁。即就撕裂社會言，扁案大體上只是造成了藍綠的撕裂，王案則非但造成了藍綠的撕裂，更造成藍營內部的撕裂，甚至可能形成連宋等人與民進黨聯手鬥爭馬英九的場景。

我們認為，立法院長介入司法關說，即無再留任的正當性。如今可以辯論的，是在處理的程序及言語的表情等方面。

黃世銘選擇以「行政調查」處理本案，而不是用「刑事偵查」，這是「法規邊緣」，而仍在「法規之中」，應是一個正確的選擇。否則，若以「刑事偵查」進行，則必須以傳訊、起不起訴等漫長的司法過程，來處理一個涉及現任立法院長及民進黨黨團總召的案子，那在實務上幾無可能，勉強進行則必將付出無法想像的社會代價。如今，以「行政調查」的形式端出，讓全案導向黨紀問題，大幅降低了本案對社會衝擊的時間與力度。因而，謂本案「未審先判」，恐是文不對題；因為，既已成為「黨紀程序」，其處置即非「司法程序」，例如林益世開除黨籍，但他的案子迄未司法定讞。

情勢顯示，現行法制對於處理現任立法院長關說司法這樣的憲法巨案，相對顯得疏漏與脆弱。王金平以立法院長關說司法，若訴諸司法偵查，社會代價太大，期盼立法院的自律更是癡人說夢；倘若不是馬英九以總統兼任黨主席，倘若不是國民黨黨章訂頒了「許舒博條款」；今天，或許王金平關說案已被總統「吃案」，或許國民黨考紀會已否決了黨紀處分案，或許王金平在向法院聲請「假處分」後繼續執行其議長職務。如此，這豈非不堪設想的憲政危機？

如此大案，在處理細節上有失周當之處必多；但無論如何，立法院長若介入司法關說即應去職，應無猶豫餘地。王案終於在體制的處理上告一段落，但真正的惡劣後果，則如扁案一般，是在案發後引爆整個社會的黑白不分與是非錯亂，以及案發後揭露的國民黨與民進黨一丘之貉的醜惡體質。