Recovering Party Assets Should Not Be About Humiliating the Kuomintang

Recovering Party Assets Should Not Be About Humiliating the Kuomintang
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
August 2, 2016

Executive Summary: Is the DPP regime genuinely interested in minimizing wasted resources, minimizing conflict, reinforcing the rule of law, and eliminating KMT party assets? If it is, then the operation of the Improper Party Assets Cleanup Committee must be more flexible and tolerant. The KMT has committed to impartial third party inventory. Once it has donated all its assets, this third party can assume this responsibility as well. Once the KMT has slimmed down, it should re-examine its retirement system for party workers. That is the proper and practical approach to the party assets controversy.

Full Text Below:

The DPP and New Power Party (NPP) have passed the "Articles for the Handling of Assets Improperly Obtained by Political Parties and Affiliated Organizations", or “Improper Party Assets Cleanup Ordinance", for short. Since then, the ruling DPP immediately began sharpening its knives. It intends to set up a "Improper Party Assets Cleanup Committee" to promote so-called “transitional justice”. Psychologically, the KMT may be prepared to lose all its party assets. But it questions the legitimacy and constitutionality of the regulations. Once the cleanup of party assets begins, administrative remedies will be required. The eventual result may be battles over constitutional interpretation.

Once the cleanup of party assets begins in earnest, legal battles are sure to ensue. A protracted war involving cut-throat battles will follow. Many scholars consider the Improper Party Assets Cleanup Ordinance unconstitutional. For example, the term "improper" is poorly defined, and involves the presumption of guilt. The Improper Party Assets Cleanup Committee would be established under the Executive Yuan. This violates the separation of powers. It also constitutes ex post facto law. The next constitutional battle cannot be dismissed with a few words. Nor can any party be assured of victory.

As for administrative relief, it is possible to demand a constitutional interpretation rather than drag matters out. Even if the DPP regime recovers KMT party assets, the battle could drag on, squander enormous resources and exact exorbitant social costs. The DPP regime could lose the constitutional battle. Its "transitional justice", its “fair competition”, and its “cleanup of improper party assets” could be reduced to a futile and unconstitutional power struggle. Ko Chien-min is concerned that if KMT party assets cannot be recovered, the issue could become the DPP's own Taipei Dome fiasco.

To be fair, KMT party assets have often been a "political ATM" for rival parties. precisely because huge party assets have resulted in unfair competition among political parties. The mere possession of assets makes one look guilty. When Lee Teng-hui was KMT Chairman, he used KMT party assets to interfere with politics. He even manipulated the stock market and consortia, and established a huge “black gold” network that left people in disgust. The general public supports "zero party assets". Many KMT members agree. They feel this burden must be addressed then lifted.

But before debating the justice of any cleanup of improper party assets, one must first acknowledge that KMT party assets are a "shared legacy". The chronology and scope of which is far more complex than most people imagine. For example, the Ministry of Justice Bureau of Investigation, the Ministry of Defense Bureau of Military Intelligence, were once KMT "affiliated organizations". The National History Museum's greatest treasures, the "Dasi Files", were once KMT party assets. Lee Teng-hui's Taiwan Research Institute was also established with funds under the control of the KMT. Even the DPP was a recipient of Lee Teng-hui's generosity, and was “wet nursed” with KMT party assets. All these leave "transitional justice" a tangled web.

Can the Improper Party Assets Cleanup Ordinance cleanup improper party assets, achieve transitional justice, and ensure fair competition among political parties? Not if the regulatory framework is defective, in which case any cleanup effort may be counterproductive. Even if the DPP regime successfully liquidates the KMT's party assets, the final casualty could be the rule of law. The final result could be never ending partisan political battles, and the unlimited expansion of executive power.

In fact, the KMT has already committed to "zero party assets". After deducting liabilities, personnel costs,  retirement benefits, and other costs, the remaining amount will be donated to the public. This commitment, once implemented, will achieve the goal of "zero party assets". The KMT will no longer enjoy an unfair advantage due to its party assets. Transitional justice will be largely realized. The Improper Party Assets Cleanup Ordinance may frustrate this goal. The DPP approach may take longer. The outcome may be less certain. The DPP approach violates the rule of law in its attempt to recover party assets. In truth, the DPP approach is not really an attempt to achieve transitional justice. It is merely a pretext to humiliate and destroy the KMT. In the eyes of the DPP, this is the real purpose behind the recovery of KMT party assets.

Is the DPP regime genuinely interested in minimizing wasted resources, minimizing conflict, reinforcing the rule of law, and eliminating KMT party assets? If it is, then the operation of the Improper Party Assets Cleanup Committee must be more flexible and tolerant. The KMT has committed to impartial third party inventory. Once it has donated all its assets, this third party can assume this responsibility as well. Once the KMT has slimmed down, it should re-examine its retirement system for party workers. That is the proper and practical approach to the party assets controversy.

討黨產的目的不該是為了羞辱國民黨
2016-08-02 聯合報

民進黨和時代力量聯手通過《政黨及其附隨組織不當取得財產處理條例》（簡稱「不當黨產清理條例」），執政黨立刻磨刀霍霍，將成立「不當黨產處理委員會」推動其所謂的轉型正義。國民黨雖有黨產歸零之心理準備，卻也擬就此條例之正當性聲請釋憲；俟「清黨產」程序啟動後，也勢必針對個案提出行政救濟程序，最終也可能走上釋憲之路。

討黨產行動一旦演變至此，勢必演成一場法律戰、持久戰、割喉戰。就法論法，已有不少學者指出《不當黨產條例》的內容確實有違憲之虞；諸如，對「不當」的定義不明、採有罪推定原則，黨產處理委員會設在行政院下，違反權力分立原則，以及違反一般法令追溯時效原則等。這些，未來在憲政法庭上的攻防，恐怕都非三言兩語說得完，更不是任何一方可侈言必勝。


立法院加開臨時會表決「不當黨產處理條例」。 （聯合報系資料庫）
至於行政救濟一途，則可能比直接申請釋憲還要曠日廢時。在這種情況下，即便民進黨政府真的討回黨產，可能是雙方纏鬥多年之後，彼此耗費了大量資源，乃至社會人心。而另一可能的情況是，民進黨政府輸掉憲法官司，所謂為了「轉型正義」、政黨公平競爭的清理不當黨產，不過成了違憲鬥爭的鏡花水月一場。柯建銘擔心，黨產若討不回來，這個問題將變成「民進黨的大巨蛋」，其原因在此。

平心而論，國民黨黨產屢屢成為對手的「政治提款機」，正是因為龐大的黨產造成了政黨間的不公平競爭，至少是「懷璧其罪」。在李登輝擔任國民黨主席期間，國民黨運用黨產介入政治、甚至操縱股市、財團，形成龐大的黑金網絡，在在讓民眾反感厭惡。因此，不只一般民眾支持「黨產歸零」，許多國民黨員也覺得這個包袱必須處理、拋棄。

但在辯論黨產的公義性質前，也必須認清國民黨黨產其實是一種「歷史共業」，其牽扯之時間、範圍與複雜度遠超過想像。例如，目前隸屬政府機關的法務部調查局、國防部軍事情報局，都曾是國民黨的「附隨組織」；國史館的鎮館之寶「大溪檔案」，曾經是國民黨的黨產；而如今李登輝掌控下的台灣綜合經濟研究院，也曾運用國民黨的經費成立。就連民進黨，都曾是李登輝用黨產「餵奶水」的對象。凡此種種，都讓所謂的「轉型正義」充滿糾結。

正因如此，要透過《不當黨產條例》來達到清黨產、轉型正義、政黨公平競爭等目的，由於該條例框架未盡合理，反而是最治絲益棼、且可能一事無成的方式。就算民進黨政府清算黨產成功，最後留下的，可能只是淪喪的法治、永無寧日的政黨惡鬥，以及無限擴張的行政權。

事實上，國民黨已對「黨產歸零」提出承諾：在扣除負債、需支付的人事、退撫等相關費用後，其餘全數捐出作為公益。此一承諾若能落實，就能直接達成「黨產歸零」的目的；未來即不會再有黨產衍生的不公平競爭問題，「轉型正義」也可獲得相當程度的伸張。然而，《不當黨產條例》立法後，此一途徑反而喪失了可能性。從這點看，民進黨決意使用可能耗時更久、成果更不確定、更不符合法治精神的方式來追討黨產，說穿了，並不是真正想要追求轉型正義，而只是想藉著這個可以翻來覆去的追討過程來羞辱、凌遲國民黨罷了。在民進黨眼裡，那才是「極大化」討黨產的政治效益。

如若民進黨政府真有心用最少的資源、最小的衝突，和最大的法治原則，讓國民黨黨產歸零，未來在不當黨產處理委員會運作上，就需要拿出更多的彈性與包容。國民黨承諾的由「公正第三方」清查黨產後捐出，順理成章也可由此委員會擔綱。而國民黨除了自我瘦身，也應重新審視退休黨工的退撫制度。如此，才是兼顧正當性、可行性、目的性的妥善處理方式。