TaiMed Corruption Scandal: Case Closed but Questions Remain

TaiMed Corruption Scandal: Case Closed but Questions Remain
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 15, 2012

Summary: The TaiMed case may be closed. But such corruption must not be allowed to happen in the future. Never again may a Vice Premier Tsai be allowed to give a government grant to a Chairman Tsai. Perhaps the Special Investigation Unit "found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing." But the people cannot tolerate such ethical violations in the future. Tsai Ing-wen must be the first, last, and only vice premier ever to get away with such behavior. Never again.

Full Text below:

The Special Investigation Unit announced yesterday that it was closing the books on the TaiMed corruption scandal. It said it failed to find any criminal wrongdoing. This concludes the criminal proceedings. That is something we must accept. But the case remains clouded by suspicion. That is not something that simply closing the case can resolve.

The key question in the TaiMed corruption scandal is "Did Vice Premier Tsai give a government grant to Chairman Tsai?" The Special Investigation Unit report says no. But the facts are glaringly obvious. Vice Premier Tsai, who personally approved the government grant to TaiMed, is the same Tsai Ing-wen who became Chairman Tsai of TaiMed upon leaving office. The legal ruling clearly contradicts what the public sees with its own eyes and hears with its own ears.

This case may be legally closed. But people are asking questions. They are wondering whether a future Vice Premier will be able to personally approve a government grant to a company while in office, then assume the chairmanship of that company upon leaving office, without fear of prosecution for corruption. The prosecutors concluded that no crimes were committed. But the public feels utterly betrayed. They assumed that government officials would conduct themselves ethically, and that anti-corruption laws would ensure that they did. 

The Special Investigative Unit helped Tsai Ing-wen by providing her with lawyerly evasions. As "evidence," it argued that Tsai Ing-wen decided to invest in TaiMed in August, 2007. It argued that the Biotech and New Pharmaceutical Development Act was promulgated on July 4, 2007. It argued that "between the two there was a definite interval." In other words, the Special Investigation Unit argued that Tsai Ing-wen became part of TaiMed one month after the implementation of the new drug regulations. Therefore Tsai Ing-wen's role as Vice Premier Tsai has no relationship to Tsai Ing-wen's role as Chairman Tsai. This might be "legal," but it also defies common sense.

Let us rewind. Assume Vice Premier Tsai had no plans to join TaiMed when she was still in office. But Tsai Ing-wen decided to assume the chairmanship of TaiMed. Did she really not know that the Yu Chang Company, whose government grants she personally approved, was also known as TaiMed? Did she really not know that ethics required her to recuse herself? This is why the legal case may be closed, but the moral and ethical case is not. The people expected more from the prosecution, and were right to expect more. Tsai Ing-wen now has a black mark on her character. The public quite naturally considers her character suspect.

This case is rife with evidence of prosecutorial discretion. For example, the Special Investigation Unit argued that Tsai family capital was private capital. It argued that scheduled payments were deposited into designated investment accounts. It argued that there was no "pocketing of funds" or other illegal activity. But TaiMed was never about the misappropriation of public funds. The raison d'etre of TaiMed, from beginning to end, was to gain control of the biotech industry. Did the Special Investigation Unit deliberately bark up the wrong tree? Did it deliberately limit the scope of its investigation? The people have deep suspicions that will not easily be allayed.

Besides, just because the Tsai family did not line its pockets, does not mean that cabinet officials did not abuse their power or engage in patronage. For example, in February 2007, Ho Mei-yueh had yet to become Chairman of the National Development Fund. As a minister without portfolio, she sent a letter to the Executive Yuan, urging the National Development Fund to invest 20 million USD in TaiMed. TaiMed had not been formally established. Yet she was already recommending a subsidy. A political appointee behaved in such a manner. Even assuming she was not deliberately covering up or engaging in patronage, was this not an abuse of power? These questions have yet to be answered in the Control Yuan's investigation.

Fortunately for Tsai, a change in ruling parties soon followed. The National Development Fund was alerted to the subsidies and called a halt to them in a timely manner. It refrained from making any large investments. Tsai Ing-wen unexpectedly became DPP chairman. She was forced to resign as Chairman of TaiMed. She urged her family to sell their shares of TaiMed, at a profit. Otherwise the Special Investigation Unit might not have been able to prosecute her case in such a cavalier fashion and conclude that "no laws were broken."

Last December, during the general election, the Special Investigation Unit launched an investigation "to preserve the relevant evidence." Clearly it was not bound by political considerations. For this it should be acknowledged. But it delayed issuing summons to Tsai Ing-wen and Su Tseng-chang until July this year. It also did nothing to prevent collusion between potential suspects. It soon became clear the case would go nowhere. It really had no intention of prosecuting the case. People acknowledge the Special Investigation Unit for closing the case. But they question the "prosecutorial discretion" exercised in the handling of the case.

The case may be closed. But such corruption must not be allowed to happen in the future. Never again may a Vice Premier Tsai be allowed to give a government grant to a Chairman Tsai. Perhaps the Special Investigation Unit "found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing." But the people cannot tolerate such ethical violations in the future.

Tsai Ing-wen must be the first, last, and only vice premier ever to get away with such behavior. Never again.

宇昌案：法律簽結 社會疑問未解
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.08.15 02:15 am

特偵組昨日公布宇昌案結案報告，未發現有人涉嫌犯罪；這是法律程序的結論，應予尊重，但此案留下的漫天疑雲卻非結案報告所能化解。

宇昌案的核心疑問在於：是不是「蔡副院長」批給了「蔡董事長」？特偵組的結案報告否定此說；但有目共睹的事實卻是，親手批定了TaiMed的「蔡副院長」，卸任後竟當了TaiMed所有相關公司的「蔡董事長」。於是，法律見解與社會視聽出現了矛盾。

本案雖然法律簽結，但國人要問的是：難道這是指出，在未來的政壇上，即可容許一位親批「宇昌案」的行政院副院長，毫無忌憚地在卸任後出任「宇昌公司」的董事長？在此，結案報告認為不涉犯罪的情事，卻與國人對政治道德及政風操守的期待出現了巨大的落差。

特偵組為蔡英文作出「切割」的手法，其主要的「證據」是：蔡英文係於九十六年八月間開始決定參與宇昌公司之投資，而《生技新藥產業發展條例》之公布施行則係於九十六年七月四日，「其間尚有一定之間隔甚明」。也就是說，特偵組指蔡英文是在《新藥條例》公布實施一個月後始決定進入宇昌公司，因此就切割了「蔡副院長」與「蔡董事長」的聯結。這也許是嚴格的「法律見解」，卻也是可笑的「經驗法則」。

退一萬步言，即使「蔡副院長」在任內沒有為自己加入宇昌公司預作準備，但難道當蔡英文在決定出任董事長時，她竟不知這家宇昌公司就是她親手批定的那一家TaiMed？更竟然不知在道德倫理上應當迴避？正因如此，法律雖可結案，但在政治道德及政風操守上，國人當然可以對本案的人物節操有更高的要求，而蔡英文也必須為此一人格汙點承當起必然的社會質疑。

再者，在結案報告中，處處可見「辦皮不辦骨」的痕跡。例如，特偵組說，蔡家資金都是自有資金，款項也都如期如數匯入指定投資帳戶，並無「中飽私囊」或涉及不法的情形。但是，宇昌公司自始至終的操作重點，都不在侵吞公帑，而在運用權力的槓桿取得生技產業的卡位特權。這點，無論是特偵組未對準偵辦方向或自我限縮偵辦範圍，都難消釋社會大眾之疑。

再說，蔡家帳目無中飽私囊情事，也不能反證內閣官員決策或行事沒有違規濫權或徇私苟且。例如，二○○七年二月，何美玥在尚未取得國發基金主委身分前，即以政務委員身分發函請行政院同意國發基金投資TaiMed兩千萬美元；又在宇昌公司尚未正式成立，即催促國發基金撥款。政務官這種作法，就算不是故意包庇或圖利，能說沒有越權及擅權嗎？這些疑問，恐怕尚待監察院的調查報告給出答案。

其實，若不是後來遇上政黨輪替，國發基金若干撥款及時警覺叫停，未再繼續砸下重金；加上蔡英文意外出任民進黨主席，不得不辭去宇昌董事長之職，並促其家族出售宇昌股份獲利了結；今天特偵組偵辦此案，恐怕不可能用如此輕鬆的姿態以「查無不法」結案吧？

特偵組在去年十二月大選期間，「為期保全相關證據」，發動調查此案，顯示不受政治現實的拘束，值得肯定；但竟遲至今年七月始傳訊蔡英文及蘇貞昌等人，又對相關人等全無防止串供的強制處分，則顯然是眼看著必然「流案」，根本沒有劍及屨及的偵辦意志。如今，國人應當尊重特偵組作出簽結的職權，但當然也可對這一份「辦皮不辦骨」的結案報告表示質疑。

雖然已經簽結，但我們仍要主張：未來政壇上，絕不容許再發生「蔡副院長」批給「蔡董事長」的情事。即使特偵組認為「未發現有人涉嫌犯罪」，但在政治道德及政風操守上，國人應當不會鼓勵、贊成，及容許這樣的情事在以後繼續發生。

蔡英文應是唯一及最後一個出現這種行為的行政院副院長，下不為例！