You Speak of Justice, He Speaks of Compassion

You Speak of Justice, He Speaks of Compassion
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
September 14, 2013

Summary: The Wang Jin-pyng scandal has becomee a case of "You speak of justice, he speaks of compassion." Wang Jin-pyng also refuses to admit to wrongdoing. He too has hijacked the political system and incited social divisions, all so he can evade criminal prosecution. Our society is so easily manipulated by blind sentimentality and political gamesmanship. Is this not sad? Is this not dangerous?

Full text below:

According to an opinion poll conducted by this newspaper, 67% of all respondents consider the revocation of Wang Jin-pyng's party membership too harsh. Nineteen percent consider it appropriate. One percent considers it too lenient. So far the public appears to be split into two camps. One camp speak of justice. The other speaks of compassion. This poll suggests that the majority of the public belong in the latter category.

Consider a past example. On March 12, 2002, President Chen Shui-bian visited former President Lee Teng-hui at Veterans General Hospital. Chen handed Lee Teng-hui a note with two names on it: Chen Kuo-tung, and Li Chung-jen. These two men were Lee Teng-hui's money launderers. Chen Shui-bian used this information, obtained during a criminal investigation, to blackmail Lee Teng-hui. Chen viewed information obtained during criminal investigations as bargaining chips to be used for political power plays and the blackmail of political rivals. He actually boasted that he "covered up 75 cases."

Now consider President Ma's handling of the Wang Jin-pyng scandal. Huang Shi-ming conducted an "administrative investigation," then reported the influence peddling scandal to Ma. His action skated on the edges of the law, but remained within the law. Ma could have responded in any number of ways. He could have contemplated the terrible political price he would have to pay, then simply covered up the scandal. He could have invited Wang Jin-pyng for talk, politely asked him to take a look at the Special Investigation Unit transcript of his phone conversations, then covered up the scandal. He could have done Wang Jin-pyng a favor, put Wang in his debt, then delivered Wang a stern warning. Instead, Ma chose to make the results of the administrative investigation public, then begin party disciplinary procedures.

The matter has provoked an uproar, precisely because Ma Ying-jeou did not cover it up. He decided not to cover it up. Consider the case from the basis of what is constitutionally proper. Wang Jin-pyng's influence peddling resulted in the loss of his official position. This was as it should be. Suppose Ma Ying-jeou had covered up the scandal because he feared the political backlash? Suppose he had exploited the opportunity to blackmail Wang Jin-pyng? The truth would eventually emerge. Ma Ying-jeou's reputation would then be irrevocably tarnished. The public would denounce him as weak, incompetent, hypocritical, devoid of any sense of right and wrong. A president and party chairman must abide by the law. A speaker of the legislature who peddles influence must resign. There is no alternative. Consider the alternative for a moment. Suppose Ma Ying-jeou had argued that a speaker of the legislature guilty of judicial influence peddling need not resign? Would the public not be outraged? Would they allow him to survive?

Most people feel that the revocation of Wang' party membership was too harsh a punishment, They feel that way because they do not understand how serious the offense of judicial influence peddling is. Recently cabinet officials have been exchanging horror stories about being pressured by legislators engaged in administrative influence peddling. Their accounts were chilling. But the legislators had plausible pretexts. They were "serving their constituents." They were "coordinating legislation." Should a Speaker of the Legislative Yuan be prosecuted for administrative influence peddling?" The answer may depend on whom one asks. But if a Speaker of the Legislative Yuan engages in judicial influence peddling, he has committed a serious constitutional violation affecting the separation of powers. There is simply no wriggle room here. The judiciary, like Caesar's wife, must be beyond reproach. Caesar may forgive his wife's infidelities. But constitutional rule cannot. It cannot  countenance a Speaker of the Legislative Yuan using budgets to coerce opposition parties into being a party to influence peddling.

Wang Jin-pyng has considerable public support. The incident occurred just when he was presiding over his daughter's marriage. On the surface, he has contributed much to the nation's governance. His image as a "Go To Person" has impressed many. The Ma administration's handling of the scandal has provoked much debate about the human side of the issue. The public has divided itself into two camps. One speaks of justice, the other speaks of compassion. This case pits justice against compassion. Reconciling the two extremes is difficult. In the Chen case, conflicts also arose between "corruption and justice" vs. "solidarity with Taiwan independence." These two extremes were also difficult to reconcile. Ma Ying-jeou has repeatedly underscored the contribution Wang Jin-pyng made, along with his public and personal relationships. But the Speaker of the Legislative Yuan engaged in judicial influence peddling. Ma has no choice but to render judgment based on right and wrong. In the end, he must make clear that "I am the president. The buck stops here."

The lapses in due process in this case have been the subject of much criticism That is indeed something that must be considered. But party disciplinary procedures cannot be characterized as a "kangaroo court." What political party does not have party disciplinary procedures? The TSU recently revoked legislator Simon Lin's party membership. Nor can lawful surveillance be equated with a "White Terror." These are obvious distortions. One can try to change the subject. but one cannot change the facts. The fact is Wang Jin-pyng engaged in judicial influence pedding on behalf of Ker Chien-ming.

A Speaker of the Legislative Yuan who engages in influence pedding must step down. No lighter punishment is available. The next lightest punishment would be 1. a reprimand with retention of his party membership and his position as Speaker of the Legislative Yuan, or 2. temporary suspension of his party privileges but retention of his status as legislator. But constitutional rule and political practice preclude this alternative. To permit him to remain Speaker of the Legislative Yuan or even a legislator would leave a ticking time bomb in the Legislative Yuan. This is something that the "justice" vs. "compassion" dichotomy cannot reconcile.

Recall the manner in which the DPP dealt with Ker Chien-ming. That is the real reason the KMT felt compelled to deal with the scandal the way it did. The DPP was determined to cover up for Ker. Ker as a consequence, has become increasingly arrogant. Should the public tolerate, let alone approve of, a party that "cares only for solidarity, but not for right and wrong?"

Some people backed Chen Shui-bian because they "cared only for solidarity, but not for right and wrong." Chen Shui-bian as a consequence, felt no remorse. He felt no qualms about hijacking the political system, inciting social divisions, and inverting right and wrong. Now this familiar story is being reenacted. The Wang Jin-pyng scandal has becomee a case of "You speak of justice, he speaks of compassion." Wang Jin-pyng also refuses to admit to wrongdoing. He too has hijacked the political system and incited social divisions, all so he can evade criminal prosecution. Our society is so easily manipulated by blind sentimentality and political gamesmanship. Is this not sad? Is this not dangerous?

你說大是大非 他說無情無義
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.09.14 03:41 am

本報民意調查指出，有六七％受訪者認為撤銷王金平黨籍的處分過重，十九％認為剛好，一％認為過輕。本案發展至今，社會上似乎出現了一種「你說大是大非／他說無情無義」的認知分裂；此項民調顯示，民意以後者居多數。

先說一件往例。二○○二年三月十二日，陳水扁總統赴榮總探前總統李登輝病，其間陳水扁對李登輝出示一張字條，上書「陳國棟／李忠仁」兩個名字；原來此二人是李登輝洗錢的人頭，陳水扁欲藉這個司法偵查情資威脅挾持李登輝。此一場景顯示：陳水扁自檢調單位取得偵查情資，將之用為政治操作及政治勒索的籌碼，且曾自稱「壓住了七十五案」。

回過頭來看馬總統處理王金平案。黃世銘循「行政調查」的路徑向馬報告關說事件（此一路徑是「法規邊緣」，但未違法規）；馬的回應或許有幾種選擇，他可因顧忌政潮的可怕代價就逕行「吃案」，或者找王金平來，請他看一看特偵組的監聽譯文，然後「吃案」，送王金平一個人情，也讓王心生畏憚。但是，馬英九的選擇是：一方面公布行政調查的案情，一方面訴諸黨紀。

此事鬧到今天的軒然大波，可說皆因馬英九沒有吃案而起。既未吃案，則就憲政正義而言，如今導致涉及司法關說的王金平去職，乃合乎比例的發展。反過來說，馬英九若因畏懼政潮或欲藉此挾持王金平而「吃案」，亦不免有被揭發的一天；屆時，莫說馬英九的歷史評價就此葬送，民間也必以懦弱、無能、鄉愿、沒有是非等辱罵加諸於他。因此，就一位護憲守法的總統及黨主席而言，主張關說司法的立法院長必須去職，應是他唯一的選擇。其實，不妨反過來想一想，馬英九若主張司法關說的立法院長不必去職，則在國人的正義理念下他難道會有活路可走？

民意認為撤銷黨籍的處罰過重，這是未必瞭解司法關說的嚴重。最近，內閣官員間不斷交換曾受立院高層「行政關說」的經驗，情節均駭人聽聞，但也均有「選民服務／法案協調」的灰色空間。因此，若是追究立法院長的「行政關說」，尚可見仁見智；但一位立法院長若進行司法關說，就犯了「侵害三權分立」的憲政天條，沒有迴旋的餘地。或謂司法是皇后的貞操，然而皇帝其實可以原諒皇后失貞；但在憲政正義上，絕無縱容包庇立法院長以預算案須反對黨配合而關說司法的道理。

王金平能獲強烈的社會同情，除事發時正值他主持女兒婚事，另一原因是他確在外觀上對國家政局頗有貢獻，且其「萬應公」的形象亦能感染人心；尤其，馬團隊處理本案時在人情觀點上引發諸多議論，遂使社會出現了「你說大是大非／他說無情無義」的認知分裂。然而，本案的「是非」與「情義」，卻是兩個極難兼顧的衝突元素；正如在扁案中，也出現「貪汙是非」與「台獨情義」的認知衝突難以兼顧。因而，馬英九雖亦再三強調王金平的貢獻與「公誼私交」，但是面對立法院長關說司法的是非判斷，卻畢竟要表明「我身為總統，無從迴避」。

本案的程序正義亦受極多批評，這些確都有待檢討。但黨紀處分被認為「私設刑堂」，試問哪一個政黨沒有黨紀機制？台聯不是剛撤銷了不分區立委林世嘉的黨籍？而「合法監聽」被指為「白色恐怖」，似乎亦有扭曲渲染之嫌。但是，不論如何轉移焦點，也不能改變王金平為柯建銘司法關說的事實。

立法院長涉及關說必須去職，是因無法取得其他較輕的處分。因為，較輕的處分就是申誡而維持黨籍及院長地位，或暫停黨權留任立委，但這些皆在憲政正義及政治實務上並無可採的餘地（留任院長或立委等於留下立院政潮火種），而這也正是「是非」與「情義」無法兼顧的困境。

其實，若能回過頭來看民進黨如何處理柯建銘的方法，即知國民黨的處置實為理所必然。民進黨如今全黨迴護柯，且柯的氣焰亦愈來愈囂張，難道社會應當容忍這種「只有情義／全無是非」的政黨？

社會上有些人曾「只有情義／全無是非」地挺扁，而陳水扁亦全無悔悟，不惜以挾持政局、撕裂社會來顛倒是非。如今似曾相識的場景彷彿又現，社會上對王金平案又陷入「你說大是大非／他說無情無義」的認知分裂；而王金平也不認錯，亦以挾持政局、撕裂社會的手法欲扭轉情勢。如此理盲濫情且極易被政客操弄的社會，寧不悲哀？豈不危險？