DPP: Beware the Specter of Corruption

DPP: Beware the Specter of Corruption
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
January 19, 2014

Summary: One need not talk about fairness and justice. Democratic Progressive Party comrades must first learn to confront their comrades' scandals. They must accept the same standards for criminal justice as ordinary people. Only then will they be eligible to return to power.

Full text below:

Transportation Minister Kuo Yao-chi has been sentenced to eight years for corruption. Nevertheless DPP leaders spin his conviction as "political persecution." Apologists for Kuo include the "two suns" Su Tseng-chang and Tsai Ing-wen, Taipei mayoral candidate Wen-Je Ko, and most members of the DPP legislative caucus. All have stood behind Kuo Yao-chi from the outset. Kuo Yao-chi may be locked up. But controversy rages on.

This scenario is nothing new. In recent years, every time a prominent DPP politician becomes mired in scandal, the DPP enacts the same charade. Yunlin County Chief Su Chih-fen and Chiayi County Chief Chang Hua-kuan are under indictment for corruption. Former TSC chairman Wu Nai-jen and former legislator Hong Chi-chang have been convicted of corruption in the TSC land purchase scandal. DPP legislative caucus leader Ker Chien-ming has been charged with influence peddling within the criminal justice system. Every time an investigation goes forward, or the court announces a verdict, the DPP dismisses the case as political persecution, and condemns it as a miscarriages of justice.

In all fairness, not all the scandals that the DPP repudiate are the same, in nature or content. Some warrant different conclusions. Others are clear cases of lawlessness. Take the TSC land purchase scandal. Legislators used "serving constituents" as a pretext to open the doors of state owned enterprises to political "sugar daddies." Take the Kuo Yao-chi bribery scandal. Read the wiretap transcripts, the perpetrators' testimony, and the minutes of internal meetings. They clearly point to government-business collusion. Take the Ker Chien-ming and Wang Jin-pyng's influence peddling within the criminal justice system. Both the Special Investigation Unit and the Prosecutorial Evaluation Committee uncovered influence peddling. Yet the DPP obdurately ignores right and wrong and backs Wang and Ker unconditionally. The Legislative Yuan Disciplinary Committee whitewashes Ker Chien-ming's crimes. It even amended the law to protect him, in flagrant disregard of public perception.

The DPP's "solidarity" in the face of such scandals is reminiscent of its attitude during the former first family scandal. Evidence of Chen family corruption was overwhelming. The DPP realized the scandal could not be covered up. Nevertheless the entire party supported Chen to the bitter end. Worst of all, idealistic party members who raised even mild objections to what the party was doing, had their loyalty questioned and were subjected to harsh discipline. This resulted in the "Eleven Brigands" incident. Until today "Save Ah-Bian!" remains one of the DPP's main themes.

The DPP's methods have led to three outcomes. One. They have confused the public. The DPP has deliberately created the impression that criminal justice discriminates on the basis of Blue or Green. This misleads the public into thinking that the KMT is still manipulating the criminal justice system. It incites hatred against the ruling KMT. Two. They have enabled the DPP to evade political responsibility. A comrade involved in corruption brings dishonor to the entire party. The DPP uses an old trick. A thief diverts attention from himself by being the first to shout "Catch the thief!" The DPP invokes a fictitious victim status to cover up its actual criminal status. Three. They have suppressed dissent within the party. They force those who know the truth, or who demand an internal review, to remain silent. They enable the party to maintain the illusion of unity.

Such practices underscore the contradiction between the DPP's words and deeds. Whenever the KMT is involved in a scandal, the DPP mounts its moral high horse. It convicts first, then asks questions later. But when one of their own is involved in corruption, they turn a blind eye to right and wrong. They rush to cover up his or her wrongdoing. Internally, this reveals the party's moral decline. Externally, this reveals the party's eagerness to subvert criminal justice and deceive the public. Such double standards are the main reason the DPP's moral image has crumbled.

Years ago the DPP collectively supported Chen Shui-bian's corruption. It paid a painfully high price. It lost a long string of local and central government level elections. Today, the DPP obstinately abets influence peddling and bribery. It thumbs its nose at voter perceptions of justice and morality. How much more moral credibility can the DPP afford to lose? Is the DPP really indifferent to renewed charges of "abetting corruption?"

The DPP repudiates the ROC Constitution. Its excuse is ideological differences. It disagrees with the political framework. But what about the rulings handed down by the criminal justice system, and ethical standards? Does the DPP imagine it can apply different standards to itself? Does it imagine it can use political ideology to render itself immune to the Republic of China's criminal justice system? If so, how many norms of the system is this arrogant political party willing to abide by?

Think about it. The Democratic Progressive Party today is merely an opposition party. When the party became involved in bribery and corruption, it rejected the rulings of the criminal justice system. It resorted to political means to whitewash its crimes. Suppose one day such a party regains political power? Suppose a variety of scandals erupt? How can the system constrain the DPP's deviant behavior?

One need not talk about fairness and justice. Democratic Progressive Party comrades must first learn to confront their comrades' scandals. They must accept the same standards for criminal justice as ordinary people. Only then will they be eligible to return to power.

民進黨須慎防挺貪腐的幽靈重現
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.01.19 04:11 am

交通部前部長郭瑤琪因貪汙案遭判刑八年定讞入獄，對此，民進黨上從「兩個太陽」蘇貞昌和蔡英文，到台北市長熱門人選柯文哲，乃至多數立院黨團成員，都在第一時間力挺郭瑤琪，指控這是「政治清算」。郭瑤琪雖已入獄，但爭議並未停歇。

這樣的場景，其實並不陌生。近年，民進黨每逢黨內重要政治人物涉及弊案，皆會上演相同戲碼。如雲林縣長蘇治芬、嘉義縣長張花冠因貪瀆案遭起訴，前台糖董事長吳乃仁、前立委洪奇昌因台糖購地弊案遭判刑，以及民進黨立院黨團總召柯建銘的司法關說案等，每有偵辦進展或遇法院宣判，民進黨總是上下一心指控相關案件是政治迫害，並譴責司法不公。

平心而論，這些民進黨內上下「力挺」的弊案，事件本質和弊情內容並不盡相同，有些案件或有不同見解，有些則是違法亂紀跡證昭然若揭。以台糖購地弊案為例，就是立委以「選民服務」之名，帶著政治「金主」登堂入室，要求國營企業為其大開方便之門。又如郭瑤琪的收賄案，看監聽譯文、行賄者證詞及內部會議紀錄，都已讓官商勾結事實無所遁形。至於王金平為柯建銘關說司法的案件，不論特偵組或檢評會的報告都直指司法關說確實存在；但民進黨仍然不顧是非黑白一致聲援王柯，立院紀律委員會並為柯建銘放水護航，甚至悍然為其修法，罔顧社會視聽。

民進黨這種面對弊案的「團結氣氛」，不由得讓人想起它面對前第一家庭弊案的態度。當時，儘管種種跡證都直指扁家涉貪，民進黨也明白事態已無法遮掩，但全黨上下卻仍選擇堅持挺扁到底。令人扼腕的是，黨內少數有理想的同志稍稍發表意見，即遭其他同志質疑忠誠度並嚴厲打壓，因而有「十一寇」事件發生。直至今日，「救扁」仍是民進黨的主旋律之一。

民進黨的做法，作用有三：一是混淆社會視聽：故意營造「司法藍綠有別」的氣氛，讓民眾誤以為國民黨仍在操縱司法，從而對執政黨產生反感；二是迴避政治責任：同志涉貪必使全黨蒙羞，「作賊的先喊抓賊」，用「受害人」的身分來掩蓋「犯罪者」的事實；三是藉此整肅黨內雜音，迫使可能知曉真相或企圖評論的黨內同志噤聲不語，以免真相外露，以便共同團結在黨的清廉假象之下。

這種手法，也反映了民進黨言行不一的矛盾。面對國民黨的弊案時，民進黨總是義正辭嚴、未審先判；但面對自家人涉貪，卻往往不問是非、極力包庇。對內而言，這是政黨的道德墮落；對外而言，則是對司法的壓迫與對社會的誤導。這種雙重標準，也是民進黨道德形象日益剝落的主因。

當年民進黨因為挺扁而不惜集體「挺貪腐」，結果付出慘痛的代價，接連輸掉地方及中央的選舉。如今，民進黨還在不斷「挺關說」、「挺收賄」，不斷挑戰選民的正義與價值認知；它有多少道德資產可以揮霍？真不怕挺「挺貪腐」的幽靈重現嗎？

民進黨對中華民國憲法的否定，一直是以意識形態的歧異為藉口，來矯飾自己對體制的不認同。但在司法判決和道德標準上，民進黨若以為自己亦可享受一套超乎社會的標準，甚至可以透過政治力的營造，使自己不受中華民國司法的拘限；那麼，如此唯我獨尊、自行其是的政黨，到底還能服從什麼體制的規範？

試想，今天民進黨只是在野，如果對於黨內涉貪、涉弊案件都要抗拒司法判決，都要透過政治手段包庇；當有朝一日，若它重新奪回政權，一旦各種弊案連環上演，政府體制內還有什麼力量約束其越軌行為？

不必奢談什麼公理正義，民進黨要先學會坦然面對黨內同志的弊案，接受和庶民相同的標準接受司法制裁，才能證明自己有資格重新執政。