Scandals Call for Criminal Investigations, not Political Purges

Scandals Call for Criminal Investigations, not Political Purges
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 22, 2015

Executive Summary: We hope that the newly-elected officials, including mayors, including Mayor Ko, as well as the Democratic Progressive Party, which has a chance of wining in 2016, will cherish this peaceful aspect of democracy. We welcome any investigation into corruption. But one must not use the legal system to seek revenge. One must not engage in blanket repudiations of a predecessor's policies. If political purges become the norm for newly-elected leaders, then peaceful regime change under democracy will be severely undermined.

Full Text Below:

Taipei Mayor Wen-Je Ko has been in office less than a month, but he has already launched attacks against Ma Ying-jeou, Hau Lung-ping, Chao Teng-hsiung, and Terry Guo. He has already condemned the Zhongxiao West Road bus lanes, the Taipei Arena, and Taipei Chiu Yue Yuan projects. Meanwhile, Taichung Mayor Lin Chia-lung denounced the BRT project as a fraud the day after taking office, and announced that the Taiwan Tower project would be suspended.

When a feudal state undergoes regime change, and a new monarch seizes power, he feels obligated to underscore the previous monarch's deficiencies. This is how he “demonstrates his compassion” and “rights past wrongs”. But this is the era of democracy. Ruling party changes reflect changes in public sentiment. Newly-elected mayors feel even more righteous when they “demonstrate compassion” and “right past wrongs”. They often do this immediately upon taking office. They categorically repudiate their predecessor's achievements, in order to show off their new thinking, new style, and new politics. The practice of repudiating everything done by the preceding regime is now standard operating procedure for newly-elected officials upon taking office.

If a newly-elected official adopts a constructive manner, offers new policies, and demonstrates courage, the public will naturally support him. If he fights corruption and attacks special interests, if he refuses to abet illegal conduct, the public will naturally applaud him. When Mayor Wen-Je Ko took office, he promoted many new policies. The dust from the ensuing controversies have yet to settle. But Mayor Ko displayed courage when he proposed new ideas. He dared to turn over a rock and aggressively promote transparency in decision-making. That warrants recognition.

But recent developments are deeply worrisome. We must caution newly-elected mayors, including Wen-Je Ko. Everyone welcomes the uncovering of scandals. But one must not tar everything a previous mayor did with a broad brush merely to win public applause. Prematurely leveling accusations of corruption is unfair to the previous administration. It will further divide society. It will set consortia against the common people, the ruling party against the opposition, and even intensify so-called “ethnic group” antagonism. Mayor Ko recently blasted everyone around him. By doing so, he trampled over due process of law and set many negative precedents.

There is nothing wrong with course changes. But a chief executive is not an civilian in the opposition. A newly-elected mayor is the focus of public attention. If he wishes to uncover corruption, he must present evidence. He must respect legal norms. His methods must be both reasonable and lawful. Regardless of Mayor Wen-Je Ko's motives, his means are highly questionable.

Assume for the sake of argument that the Far Glory Taipei Dome case, the Mei He City case, the Songshan Cultural and Creative Park case, and the Taipei Chiu Yeh case all involve corruption. How should an elected mayor in a democratic nation approach the problem? First of all, he should study the relevant legal documents and the original decision-making process. If there is cause for suspicion, the proper approach is an investigation by the justice system, acting as referee. The newly elected mayor should not hurl reckless accusations. Mayor Ko is not a criminal prosecutor. Yet he has used his office to accuse Far Glory of "lawlessness." What is this, if not “first sentence, then try” a practice that many, in particular DPP supporters, once rightly condemned? In fact, the correct approach is extremely simple. Mayor Ko should submit the contracting procedures he considers illegal to internal affairs, who will in turn submit them to prosecutors for investigation. This must be done for the proper administration of justice. Cases must be subjected to layer upon layer of legal review.

Mayor Ko even threatened vendors, saying "If you sue me, then I will deal with you first!” This too was a clear violation of administrative law, which "prohibits improper linkage." Internal affairs units have investigative priority. How can disputants be allowed to take part in cases connected to the administrative agency? That amounts to a flagrant abuse of executive power.

Ko said that the Taipei City Government rejects threats from consortia. It is true that Terry Gou's front page ad was a tad heavy-handed. But on the other hand, the Taipei City Government must not threaten consortia either. Mayor Ko agreed that "Consortia are important to the nation's industrial and commercial strength." To respond by seeking revenge is hardly proper conduct for a Taipei mayor.

Mayor Ko has broken free of the existing framework. He has experimented with a new political culture. To this extent, we affirm his achievement. We hope Mayor Ko is the herald of a new political culture. But that does not mean Mayor Ko can ignore the legal framework, blur the distinction between the tripartite powers, and treat administrative authority as a weapon and open fire on at everyone in sight.

One of the most valuable characteristics of democracy, is term limits and competitive elections. These allow peaceful, non-violent regime change. Politicians who seek political power, must be elected. They have no need to wage war, shed blood, or liquidate enemies. This means that the cost to the losers is reduced. Moreover, losers are not necessarily losers forever. Once the terms of those in power expire, losers still have a chance at a comeback. The cost of losing is small. The possibility of a comeback is permanent. This makes winners in democracies less likely to resort to extreme measures to defend their regimes. This also allows losers to honor the election results, concede, and step down. These are all factors that ensure stability within democracies.

We hope that the newly-elected officials, including mayors, including Mayor Ko, as well as the Democratic Progressive Party, which has a chance of wining in 2016, will cherish this peaceful aspect of democracy. We welcome any investigation into corruption. But one must not use the legal system to seek revenge. One must not engage in blanket repudiations of a predecessor's policies. If political purges become the norm for newly-elected leaders, then peaceful regime change under democracy will be severely undermined.

社論－前朝弊案該查但不可清算
2015年01月22日 04:10
本報訊

台北市長柯文哲上任尚未足月，前砍馬英九、後踢郝龍斌、左打趙藤雄、右擊郭台銘，從忠孝西路公車專用道、小巨蛋、三創數位園區（台北秋葉原），一路推翻前朝的施政；另一方面，台中市長林佳龍，繼上任隔天將BRT形容成「騙局」之後，又拋出「台灣塔暫緩執行」。

從政治上言，封建時期改朝換代的新君主，都要顯出前朝君主的無道，才能映襯自己「弔民伐罪」的正當性。現在是民主時代，政黨輪替代表民心思變，新科市長「弔民伐罪」更理直氣壯，上任的起手式，就是全面否定前任首長的政績，對襯出自己的新思維、新作風與新政治。種種「蕭規曹不隨」的作為，就變成新官上任的共同火。

從正向言，新人新政、展現魄力，社會都會支持，打貪擊特、勿縱不法，民眾也會拍掌叫好。特別是柯文哲市長上任後，力推的許多新政，雖然惹來不少爭議塵埃，但大體上，柯市長勇於表達主張、敢於掀開鍋蓋、積極推動決策公開化、透明化的企圖心，值得肯定。

但我們必須說，近日的情況發展，已經令人憂心。我們必須要提醒並建議包括柯文哲市長在內的新科市長們。揭發弊案，國人欣見，但不能為了贏得揭發弊案的美譽，而把所有前任市長的建設，都先戴上圖利的帽子，先罩上貪汙的疑雲，這對前任者不公平，更將進一步的撕裂社會，讓社會演變成財團對庶民、執政對在野，乃至於族群對族群的激化對立。就以柯市長最近火炮四射的爭議為例，中間就有很多違反程序正義的錯誤示範。

改弦更張並無不妥，但既然已是行政首長而非在野平民，新科市長們的一言一行動見觀瞻，就算要偵弊，也要準於證據、依於規範，無論如何也應該要有「合理」、「合法」的手段。而柯文哲市長到目前為止，不論出發點為何，手段實有商榷之必要。

首先，就算先假設遠雄大巨蛋案、美河市案、松菸文創、台北秋葉原都有人謀不臧之處，作為民主國家的民選市長，應該要如何處理？首先，應該研究相關法律文件及當初決策過程，如果確有疑義，最適當的做法是，由司法來調查、裁判，而非由自己輕率定奪。柯市長並非司法機關，以首長之姿宣告遠雄「無法無天」，不正是之前許多人，特別是民進黨支持者常常掛在口中的「未審先判」嗎？正確的作法其實簡單至極，應是將訂約程序中柯市長認為有「違法之虞」者，由政風單位移送檢調偵辦，而在司法裁判之前，可藉由驗收審查機制層層把關。

此外，柯市長對民間廠商說出「你再告，我每一案就優先查你」，也明顯違反了行政法的「不當聯結禁止原則」。政風單位查案的優先順序，怎麼可以跟當事人在其他案件與行政機關的爭議有關連呢？這已是公然宣示濫用行政權力！

他又說，台北市政府不受財團要脅，確實，郭台銘在報紙頭版刊登廣告，話是說得太重了，但同樣地，台北市政府也不可以要脅財團。就如同柯市長也同意的「財團是國家重要的工商力量」，用秋後算帳方式來對應，這不是台北市長應有之風範。

這一段時間以來，我們看到柯市長打破框架，實驗新政治文化的企圖心與可能性，對這一點，我們持正向的態度，期待柯市長帶來不一樣的新氣象。但這不代表柯市長可以打破體制、紊亂三權的分際，以違背體制的行政做為武器四方開火。

民主政體的可貴處之一，就是它會透過任期制與競爭性的選舉，讓政權移轉以和平而非暴力的方式進行。想要贏得政權的政治人物，只要透過選舉，而無須透過流血的戰爭或清算鬥爭，這意謂輸家要付出的代價較小，而且，輸家未必是永遠的輸家，主政者任期屆滿，輸家仍有機會捲土重來。失去政權的代價較小、重贏執政的可能性永遠存在，這讓民主政體的贏家比較不會採取極端的方式保衛政權，也讓輸家比較能夠尊重選舉結果，認輸下野。這些都構成民主政治的安定因子。

我們希望，包括柯市長在內的所有新科市長，乃至於2016年也許有機會重贏執政的民進黨，要珍惜、珍視這一份民主政治的「和平元素」。查弊我們欣見，但不能以「入人於罪」的心態，無限上綱式的否定、質疑前任者的施政。一旦「清算」成為了所有新執政者的共同起手式，民主政體和平輪替政權的功能，也將會受到嚴重的斲喪。