Nothing more than a Legal Hack?

Nothing more than a Legal Hack?
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 26, 2007

Comment: Taiwan independence fellow travelers love to gush about Taiwan's "lively/thriving/vibrant" democracy. But as the following editorial in the mass-circulation United Daily News, the largest Chinese language newspaper on Taiwan makes clear, judicial independence is a chimera on today's Pan Green fascist-ruled Taiwan.

The only defect in this otherwise excellent article is its conceptually imprecise, overly generous title, which characterizes Deep Green High Court Public Prosecutor Eric Chen as a "legal hack" or "hack lawyer."

Eric Chen does not deserve such a characterization. Such a characterization is far too flattering. A legal hack is an unimaginative drone who mechanically applies the letter of the law consistently in all cases, regardless of whether it is appropriate or not. A legal hack's failing is not a lack of integrity, but a lack of imagination.

Eric Chen is not a legal hack. Eric Chen lacks the robotic integrity of a legal hack. Eric Chen is a hatchet man. A hatchet man's failing is not a lack of imagination, but a lack of integrity. Eric Chen is a Deep Green hatchet man who applies the law inconsistently from case to case, according to orders from above and the political affiliation of his intended victim.


Public Prosecutor Eric Chen's laughably Orwellian poster reads: "Eric Chen, Conscience. A Solomonic legal judgment. We are willing to wait. We are willing to believe. A pro-democracy activist in his youth, non-partisan, concerned only with right and wrong, unconcerned with political coloration, from start to finish, a public prosecutor concerned only with justice"


Hou Kuan-ren, Eric Chen clone

Nothing more than a Legal Hack?
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 26, 2007

Why haven't the Discretionary Fund accounts of the "Four Princes" (Su Tseng-tsang, Frank Hsieh, Annette Lu, and Yu Hsi-kuen, the four political stars of the DPP) been investigated and made public? According to reports, Public Prosecutor Eric Chen said that he was afraid of affecting the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) presidential primaries! But when Eric Chen and Hou Kuan-jen indicted Ma Ying-jeou for alleged misuse of his Discretionary Fund account, didn't they tell us that they didn't care about politics, they didn't care about the presidential election?

Is this the same Eric Chen? Is this the same public prosecutor's office?

That Eric Chen and Hou Kuan-jen of the High Court Public Prosecutor's Office Anti-corruption Center have refused to apply the same standards to the four political stars of the DPP that they have applied to Ma Ying-jeou is the key reason their handling of the Discretionary Fund account case is unfair and unjust.

The legal opinions of public prosecutors in the north and the south clearly differ. If Chen and Hou had prosecuted every one of these political figures, including Ma Ying-jeou and the four political stars of the DPP, and dealt with every one of them in the exact same manner, then out of respect for prosecutorial independence, we would have little to say and would simply leave the outcome to the courts.

The problem is not that Chen and Hou's opinons differ from those of other public prosecutors. The problem is that Chen and Hou dealt with Ma Ying-jeou in a different manner than they did the four political stars of the DPP. This has inflicted irreparable damage to the justice system and cast doubt upon its impartiality.

The failure of Eric Chen and Hou Kuan-jen to investigate and prosecute the four political stars of the DPP, and to apply the same standards to them as they did during their investigation and prosecution of Ma Ying-jeou, constitutes a major legal and political injustice. This is a responsibility Chen and Hou cannot evade. From a legal perspective, the Anti-corruption Center will soon be dissolved. Their cases will be taken over by the Special Investigative Unit. But signs suggest that most prosecutors within the Tainan Public Prosecutor's Office believe that half of the funds within the Discretionary Fund account do not need receipts. Therefore once the Special Investigative Unit takes over, the four major political stars of the DPP, in contrast with Ma Ying-jeou, will be presumed innocent. How can it be that Ma Ying-jeou alone is subject to the harshest interpretation of law? How can Chen and Hou turn a deaf ear to demands from all walks of society that the same standards and protocol must apply in all cases, but instead persist in indicting Ma Ying-jeou alone?

From a political perspective, by invoking the most Draconian standards in their indictment of Ma Ying-jeou, Chen and Hou have put Ma Ying-jeou in the same legal predicament that Chen Shui-bian finds himself in. Not only have Chen and Hou erected endless barriers in the way of Ma Ying-jeou's presidential bid, they have conferred a major political advantage on the four political stars of the DPP, one of whom will be the DPP's next presidential candidate. Is this not a disguised form of intervention in the next presidential election? Hasn't applying different standards to the manner in which one investigates and prosecutes candidates belonging to different political parties already resulted in unfairness in the election process?

Chen and Hou have argued that they will prosecute the four political stars of the DPP case no more than a month after they prosecuted Ma Ying-jeou. They have argued "We don't have enough manpower," and claimed that was the reason the cases didn't go forward simultaneously. Now however, they have admitted that the real reason was they were "afraid it would affect the DPP presidential primaries."

Based on information made public following the Tainan Public Prosecutor's investigation into the Two Hsus case, prosecutors in the north and south knew that they would arrive at different conclusions, even before they announced their findings. The Tainan Public Prosecutor's Office had communicated with Chen and Hou but had been unable to arrive at an agreement with them. Furthermore, Chen and Hou knew perfectly well that the legislature had approved Chen Tsung-ming as prosecutor general, that the Special Investigative Unit was being formed, and that the High Court Public Prosecutor's Anti-corruption Center was being dissolved. The media even reported that Eric Chen was a subject of investigation by the Special Investigative Unit. Chen and Hou knew perfectly well that differences in legal opinion would arise, and that the legal institutions were under reorganization. Therefore, for the sake of fairness, shouldn't they have processed every case according to the same standards and protocol, instead of fixating on a single case? Instead, they hurriedly prosecuted only the Ma Ying-jeou case. The four major political stars of the DPP case, the Weng Yueh-sheng case, and the Chen Tang-shan case, were all set to one side. It is widely assumed that prosecutors as savvy and experienced as Chen and Hou would never stoop so low. Now however, the reason they did stoop so low is known. They were "afraid of the effect on the DPP presidential primaries." But if that was the case, why weren't these same prosecutors afraid of the effect on the KMT presidential primaries while they were busy prosecuting Ma Ying-jeou?

Furthermore, Eric Chen let off Chen Shui-bian off the hook in the State Affairs Confidential Expenses Case, voluntarily declaring that Chen Shui-bian "did not need documentation" for half of his expenses. He publicly insisted that numerous accomplices whom he never investigated, including members of Chen Shui-bian's family, "ought to be forgiven." The contrast between Eric Chen's generous manner then, with the unforgiving manner in which he and Hou Kuan-jen dealt with Ma Ying-jeou afterwards, is the difference between night and day. Doesn't this arouse suspicions that the public prosecutor's handling of the case amounts to a vast conspiracy to frame Ma Ying-jeou, and a flagrant attempt to manipulate the future political landscape?

In their bill of indictment for the Two Hsus case, the Tainan Public Prosecutor said that one who mechanically applies the law is a "legal hack." Some people thought his criticism was overly harsh. If Chen and Hou were merely "legal hacks" they could still be forgiven. What is truly frightening is their premeditated abuse of judicial authority in order to influence the political situation.

Sure enough, Eric Chen's public declarations have confirmed society's worst fears.

Original Chinese below:

只是「法匠」而已嗎？
聯合報社論
2007/03/26

四大天王的特別費案何以尚未偵結公布？據報導，陳瑞仁檢察官說：是怕影響了民進黨的總統初選！但是，陳瑞仁與侯寬仁起訴了馬英九的特別費案，卻說：我們不問政治，也不問總統大選！

這是同一個陳瑞仁嗎？這是檢察一體嗎？

高檢查黑中心檢察官陳瑞仁和侯寬仁未能以同步、同標準處理馬英九和民進黨「四大天王」等案件，是特別費案造成不公不義的核心因素。

南北檢方的法律見解有重大差異，這是無可否認的事實。倘若這種差異只是存在於陳侯二人承辦的「全部案件」（包括馬案及四大天王案等），與其他檢察官承辦的案件之間；則本於對檢察官獨立行使職權的尊重，也只能聽其自然，交由法院決定。

但是，問題在於陳侯二人不僅與其他檢察官辦案意見不同，就陳侯二人承辦的馬案和民進黨「四大天王」等案件，竟也出現不同的處理，致被質疑為無可修補的司法大敗筆。

陳 瑞仁和侯寬仁未以同步、同標準偵辦馬英九和民進黨「四大天王」等案件，在法律和政治兩方面都造成了嚴重的不公不義。這是陳侯二人無從逃逭的責任。在法律方 面，查黑中心即將解散，案件將移特偵組接手；而跡象顯示，南檢關於特別費不要單據的一半採「無罪說」的法律見解，似為多數檢察官的意見，則特偵組接手後， 對民進黨「四大天王」等案就很可能亦採「無罪說」，而與馬案不同。然則，陳侯二人的嚴苛法律見解，豈不是只由馬英九一人承受？而陳侯二人當時又何以置各界 同步、同標準偵結以示公平的呼籲於不顧，堅持非先起訴馬英九一人不可？

在政治方面，陳侯二人以嚴苛標準起訴馬英九，讓馬英九和即將下台的 陳水扁一樣官司纏身，不啻造成馬英九競選總統從起步就面臨困難重重的障礙；同時，陳侯二人卻放過了手中將產生民進黨下屆總統候選人的「四大天王」的同類案 件，相對而言已使「四大天王」居於有利地位，這豈不是以案件偵辦步調的不同，變相地介入了下屆總統選舉，操弄了下屆總統選舉，甚且已經造成選舉不公？

據陳侯二人的說法，馬案和民進黨「四大天王」的案件收案相差一個月，且「人手不足」，所以未同步偵辦；詎料，如今則已承認真正的原因是「怕影響民進黨初選」。

以 南檢偵結二許案之後公開的訊息看來，早在南北兩案都還未偵結前，南檢曾與陳侯二人溝通，但未取得共識；因而，南北檢方法律見解不同，應是陳侯二人早已知悉 之事。再者，隨著檢察總長陳聰明人事案通過，特偵組已在籌組中，高檢查黑中心即將解散，亦為陳侯二人明知之事（媒體曾報導陳瑞仁亦是特偵組徵詢對象之 一）。既然明知法律意見有歧異，機關組織又將調整，則陳侯二人為公平處理起見，理應將手中全部相關案件以同標準、同步偵結，而絕不宜單獨偵結某一案件。但 偏偏只急速偵結馬案，「四大天王」及翁岳生、陳唐山等案卻擱置一旁。一般認為，以陳侯二人的辦案歷練，當不致如此；今答案揭曉，竟是「怕影響民進黨初 選」。那麼，為何偵辦馬英九時，檢察官無此類想法？

再者，陳瑞仁在國務機要費案放過陳水扁自行宣稱「不需單據」的一半，又對許多未追究的 共犯包括陳水扁的家人公開表示「饒了他們吧」；對照當時陳瑞仁寬厚的態度，與後來他和侯寬仁嚴辦馬英九的手法，誠是天差地別。果係如此，豈不令人懷疑檢察 官藉辦案布置了一個天大的政治陰謀，構陷馬英九，赤裸裸地欲影響未來的政局？

南檢在二許案的起訴書中指堆砌概念、機械地適用法律者是「法匠」，有人認為批評過重；陳侯二人若只是「法匠」而已，尚非不能諒宥，唯若是蓄意藉司法權勢來玩弄政治、操弄政局，則貽禍之嚴重，思之令人不寒而慄。

如今，陳瑞仁的說法，卻儼然證實了這樣的社會疑慮。

Normal Methods to achieve a "Normal Country"

Normal Methods to achieve a "Normal Country"
China Times editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 25, 2007

Comment: Taiwan independence Quislings want Taiwan to be a "normal country." But Taiwan can never be a "normal country" because Taiwan is not a country, "normal" or otherwise. It is a province of China.

The reason Taiwan is abnormal, the reason Taiwan is experiencing the myriad problems cataloged in the following China Times editorial, is that Taiwan independence Quislings persist in trying to make Taiwan into something that it isn't. The only way to make Taiwan "normal" is to make it what it is, a province of China, specifically, the Republic of China.

Taiwan independence Quislings need to wise up to the fact that Taiwan as a province of the Republic of China is as normal as it's going to get.

Taiwan independence Quislings who refuse to accept Taiwan as a province of the Republic of China need to ask themselves if they would prefer Taiwan as a province of the People's Republic of China, because those are the only two choices they're ever going to get.

As former Secretary of State Colin Powell put it, accurately as well as bluntly, "Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation."

A "sovereign and independent nation of Taiwan" is not in the cards, not in this universe.


Google's Map of the Chinese province of Taiwan

Normal Methods to achieve a "Normal Country"
China Times editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 25, 2007

What must Taiwan [the Republic of China government on Taiwan] do before the Republic of China can be considered a "normal country?" Must it ignite the flames of war by "rectifying names," starting from Taipei and ending up overseas? Must it tear down company signs containing the words "China" or "Chinese," from the southern tip of Taiwan to the northern tip of Taiwan? Or should it undertake reforms, develop the economy, and seek consensus?

As the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) "Green Son of Heaven" Chen Shui-bian sponsors conferences questioning whether the constitution is a "One China" constitution and whether the premier "attempted to force the king to abdicate," and as the Legislative Yuan repeatedly blocks ruling DPP government-sponsored bills and budgets, these controversies underscore the great divide in Taiwan society. If either the ruling party or the opposition party adheres rigidly to ideology, and deliberately ignores such differences, even if it succeeds in removing every last sign reading "China," Taiwan will still not qualify as a "normal country." If, under such a regime, one is engaged in politics and promoting policies that impact the lives of large numbers of people, yet is blind to any considerations except political considerations, then one is disregarding the people's real needs.

Democratic politics means seeking consensus through the democratic process, and based on such a consensus, promoting the nation's social development. The DPP government, disregarding the will of the majority, insists on "rectifying names." The result may satisfy the ideological needs of certain elements within society, but they increase social polarization and make it impossible to pass important legislation or budgets in the national legislature, leaving the country and the government in chaos.

For example, the ruling DPP illegally removed all "China Postal Company" signs and stamps and changed them to read "Taiwan Post Co. Ltd." even before the relevant laws were passed. The ruling DPP government may consider its "rectification of names" campaign a success, but the China Postal Company annual budget still hasn't been approved by the Legislative Yuan. Relevant legislation has not only been repeatedly blocked, it hasn't even been submitted for deliberation. The democratic process requires a nation's policies to be approved by its legislature. The strategic scenario of a minority ruling party and a majority opposition party is a political reality that the ruling DPP government has no choice but to accept.

China Postal Company signs may have been changed to read "Taiwan Postal Co. Ltd." but the company's legal footing remains dubious. The China Petroleum Corporation was craftier. It changed its name to "Taiwan China Petroleum," sidestepping the need to revise its name legally. Nevertheless, it remains a state-owned enterprise whose budget must be approved by the Legislative Yuan. Sure enough, China Petroleum's budget remains deadlocked.

Next, there is the "Draft Law for the National Language" which has been criticized by opposition parties as an attempt to desinicize the Republic of China, and which was blasted even before being sent to the legislature. To be fair, it is not wrong for the DPP to want a legal basis for the nation's language. Preserving linguistic diversity is a global trend. Previous governments adopted strong arm tactics while promoting the current official language. Perhaps this contributed to the hostility DPP or pro-independence elements feel toward the current official language. But adopting a "win/lose" attitude and refusing to communicate can only lead to legislation becoming mired in political considerations. It can only deepen the mistrust and insecurity felt by ethnic groups accustomed to using different languages. The fate of such legislation can easily be imagined.

The language of the revised draft law for the "Organic Laws for the National Palace Museum," which deletes references to "ancient Chinese cultural relics and art objects," and to the "National Beijing Palace Museum" on museum labels, has also provoked charges of desinicization. Whether one wishes to desinicize or not is a political question. But the history of the National Palace Museum is clear. Its main collection of cultural relics came from Beijing's National Palace Museum. One may be able to delete mention of these facts from museum labels, but that does not mean one can delete the historical memory of the National Palace Museum's origin. More to the point, why is such Orwellian historical revisionism the ruling DPP government's highest priority? The National Palace Museum South Building is currently under construction. The National Palace Museum South Building could have been made separate and distinct from the National Palace Museum. In fact, if the DPP government had wanted to establish another museum, why did it insist on attaching the South Building to the side of the National Palace Museum? Why didn't it define the current South Building as an entirely new museum?

Proposed legislation and budgets, whether they have been sent to the legislature or not, all provoke ruling government and opposition party polarization and unrest. Legislative review of budgets and bills require certain set procedures. Ruling DPP administrative improprieties and legal violations have made smooth passage of the annual budget impossible. The 2008 budget is looming, even as the 2007 budget recedes toward the horizon. Is this the way a "normal government" operates?

Don't even mention proposed legislation. With few exceptions, legislative review of proposed legislation is a waste of time. Without negotiations between the ruling and opposition parties, expecting bills to become law is wishful thinking. Among the bills currently stalled in the legislature is the Revised Draft Law for Central Election Committee. This bill is tied up with the arms budget. Old bills remain stalled, even as new controversies arise. With the legislature and the executive locked in endless political struggles, what can we expect the government to get done?

Don't place all the blame on the legislature. Reviewing budgets is the responsibility of the legislature. But pointless, deliberately provocative, irresponsible attempts to push through legislation that one knows perfectly well will never pass, that fail to respect the need to establish priorities, that ignore majority opinion, that is the responsibility of the executive! Motivated by the upcoming presidential election, the political stars of the DPP are falling over each other ingratiating themselves with Deep Green extremists. As a result, Taiwan's economic development and social harmony will suffer irreparable damage.

Original Chinese below:

請用正常手段追求「正常的國家」
中時社論
2007.03.25

台灣該怎麼做，才叫做「正常的國家」？是烽火連天的從台北正名到海外、事業單位招牌從北台灣拆到南台灣？還是正本清源，規規矩矩地發展經濟、推動共識？

正 當民進黨綠天王舉行辯論會，爭執憲法是否一中、閣揆是否逼宮時，立法院一次又一次擋下了民進黨政府提送的法案和預算案，凸顯了台灣社會的反差。不論執政 者或在野黨，若執著於意識形態，刻意忽視這樣的落差，即使拆遍「中華」的招牌，台灣，都還不能謂為「正常的國家」。因為，在這個國度裡，從事政治、推動政 策因而影響多數人民生活的人，眼睛裡只看到政治，卻無視於人民真正的需要。

民主政治就是要透過民主程序，尋求最大共識，並在這個最大共識 下，推動國家社會的發展。民進黨政府無視多數民意，執意「正名」，其結果就是滿足特定人士的 意識形態，卻擴大社會的兩極對立，更麻煩的是，所有的重大法案、預算都不可能得到國會的支持，國家、政府運轉其實是處於扭曲狀態。

舉例而 言，中華郵政公司在相關法律修改前，即先行拆換全台郵局的招牌，郵品上的「中華」標誌全面變更。民進黨政府認為「正名」成功，但是，中華郵政的年度 預算，迄今不被立法院接受，相關修法案，一再被封殺，連審議的邊都沾不上。民主程序必須在國會中完成，朝小野大的國會生態，是民進黨政府不能不接受的現 實。

中華郵政的招牌已被改成了「台灣郵政」，但其法律基礎依舊薄弱；中國石油公司取了個巧，改名為「台灣中油」，他沒有法律修正的問題，卻依然有國營事業預算必須送立法院審議的問題，果然，中油預算也被卡住了。

接 下來，還有被在野政黨批評為「去國語化」的《國語法草案》，還沒送到立法院就被罵翻天。持平而論，民進黨政府要讓國家語言有一個法定基礎，並不為過；保 存多種語言也是世界潮流。無可諱言，前朝政府在推動現行通用的官方語言時，同樣採取了強行壓制的手段，或許是讓民進黨，或獨派人士對現行通用官方語言敵視 的原因。然而，以爭輸贏的心態，不做溝通，只會讓這樣的立法案，摻入政治因素，讓慣用不同語言的族群，加深彼此的不信任感和自己的不安全感，這個法案的下 場可想而知。

一路數下來，包括《國立故宮博物院組織條例》修正草案，在內文中刪掉了有關「中國古代文物藝術品」和「國立北平故宮博物院」 等文字敘述，同樣引發去中國化 的爭議，去不去中國化是政治問題，但是故宮存在的歷史清清楚楚，其主要收藏文物確係來自北平的故宮博物院，刪掉了這樣的文字敘述，卻刪不掉故宮的歷史淵 源；最重要的，此時此刻，有必要把這樣的文字修正，列為優先施政項目嗎？故宮南院刻正興建中，南院與故宮本身即可做一區隔，甚至如果民進黨政府要另立博物 院，為什麼南院還要沾故宮的邊？就明確清楚的將現行故宮南院定位為新博物院不好嗎？

上述法案與預算案，不論已送立法院或待送立法院，都引 起朝野的對立和不安。國會審議預算與法案，有一定的程序，從預算案而言，因為民進黨政府不當的行政措 施，或者未依法行政，造成年度預算無法順利通關，眼看著九十七年度預算即將開編，九十六年度預算卻還遙遙無期，這豈是政府正常運轉之道？

法 案就更不要提了，幾無例外，立法院審查法案曠日廢時，若非經朝野協商簽字，預期法案三讀，直如天方夜譚。眼前擺在立法院過不了的修法案，中選會組織法修 正草案即是其一，因為這個法案，還連帶綁住了軍購預算。舊案未過，新的爭議又來，立法院朝野永遠為了新的政治口水，纏鬥不休，政府還能做什麼事呢？

不 要把責任都丟給立法院，審議預算法案，是立法院的責任，但是，漫無標的，甚至刻意以引起爭議的方式，狂推明知通不過的法案，既未弄清楚己身職權的優先順 序，亦未體會多數民意需求所在，那就是行政機關不負責任！為了總統大選，民進黨天王競相向深綠忠誠表態拚政治，台灣的經濟發展、社會和諧，卻將因此遭到無 法彌補的傷害。

Is the "Second Republic" a "Draft Constitution to Sell Out Taiwan?"

Is the "Second Republic" a "Draft Constitution to Sell Out Taiwan?"
United Daily News Editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 23, 2007

Comment: The Chen regime's so-called "Draft Constitution for a Second Republic of China" was written with the intention of taking yet another step toward Taiwan independence. While it may succeed in weakening the Taiwan region's identification with the government of the Republic of China, Its defective language may unwittingly strengthen the hold the People's Republic of China government on the Chinese mainland has over the island. In short, from a Taiwan independence True Believer's perspective, "out of the frying pan, and into the fire."

Is the "Second Republic" a "Draft Constitution to Sell Out Taiwan?"
United Daily News Editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 23, 2007

Chen Shui-bian touts the concept of a "Second Republic of China" as one which "unyielding defends principles, but does not sacrifice practicality," and Ku Kuan-min echoed his sentiments. A few days later, a "Draft Constitution for a Second Republic of China" emerged, and the public watched as this constitutional revisionist trial balloon took to the air.

Astonishingly, the very first sentence of the "Draft Constitution of the Second Republic" contains a mistake. The first sentence of the preamble states that "The Republic of China was established in 1911," when in fact the Republic of China was established in 1912. This passes as a minor mistake in the draft constitution. The major mistakes are both more numerous and more egregious.

The most questionable section of the preamble is this passage: "The establishment of any form of political relations between the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China must first undergo peaceful and equitable negotiations, then be submitted to a popular referendum."

This provision links the "Republic of China" and the "People's Republic of China," and in addition stipulates that "the establishment of any form of political relations" between the two sides must first "undergo negotiations, then be subjected to a popular referendum." But why should the Constitution of the Republic of China be required to include stipulations concerning links with the People's Republic of China? What kind of constitution stipulates that the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China "must negotiate" and establish "political relations?" Furthermore, how is the Republic of China going to hold a public referendum that "must be negotiated" with the People's Republic of China?

Does this not amount to awarding the People's Republic of China, by means of the Constitution of the Republic of China, the "power to participate, negotiate, and even decide" the future of Taiwan?

This "Draft Constitution for the Second Republic" will in fact do everything possible to sever any connection with the previous Republic of China (The First Republic). Who would have expected that the future of the Taiwan region would be so closely linked with the People's Republic of China in such a constitution? This constitution inverts the nonessential and the essential, cause and effect, and antagonist and protagonist. This constitution endeavors by its design to sever links, yet unexpectedly winds up creating links. Is that not both foolish and absurd?

The intention of the author was presumably to smuggle into the preamble a legal pretext for the "Two States Theory" and the holding of a "Taiwan Independence Referendum." But because of fears that this would enrage the Chinese Communist Party and the United States, this could not be stated too clearly. Hence the need for the "equitable negotiations" proviso, and the "unified popular referendum" option. But by doing this, what was originally a "two sides, divided rule" constitution. has by means of a "Second Republic," become a "negotiated future" constitution. The former language, "The Republic of China is a sovereign and independent nation," has ironically become "a linked entity whose future must be negotiated with the People's Republic of China."

We are not suggesting that the two sides cannot or ought not "negotiate," but "negotiations" can proceed only on practical matters affecting both sides of the Taiwan Strait, in pace with shifts in the strategic picture. If the explicit language of the constitution uses this kind of language to link the two sides, this is most assuredly not a solution to one's predicament, but rather sticking one's own head into the guillotine. In fact, the past several attempts to "author a new constitution" and to conduct a "popular referendum" resulted in the wiggle room for Taiwan independence getting smaller and smaller. This "Draft Constitution for the Second Republic," assuming it ever materializes, would by means of an explicitly worded constitution, bind the future of the Taiwan region with the People's Republic of China. One really has to wonder what its proponents are thinking.

Especially worrisome is the fact that the Taiwan independence movement still does not dare to dispense with the name, "Republic of China," but can only engage in self-deceit and deceit of others by using the name "Second Republic." But even though they have retained the name "Republic of China" as an amulet to protect themselves, they have been busy eliminating every trace of the Republic of China. They have endeavored to empty the "Republic of China" of every last bit of substance, while retaining the name "Republic of China" for appearance. The final result is predictable. Because the Taiwan independence movement cannot dispense with the name "Republic of China," it will never be able to achieve its final goal. Meanwhile, the "Republic of China" will have been emptied of all substance, leaving a body without a soul. This is not "nation-building," but "nation-destroying." The Taiwan region of China will never become the "Republic of Taiwan," but neither will it remain the last bastion of the "Republic of China." The soul of the nation having been buried, what will remain? The "Constitution of the Second Republic" does not dare to cross the red line of Taiwan independence, therefore it does not dare to do away with the "Republic of China." One can safely predict, based on the myriad problems the draft constitution must address, that it will end up as nothing more than a massive farce, involving self-deception and the deception of others.

The "Draft Constitution for a Second Republic of China" has taken another step toward emptying out the substance of the Republic of China. However not only can it not meet the expectations of the Taiwan independence movement, it has handed the future of the Taiwan region over to the People's Republic of China for "negotiation." Could it really be that the "Draft Constitution of the Second Republic" is in fact a "Draft Constitution to Sell Out Taiwan?"

Original Chinese below:

「第二共和」是「賣台憲草」？
聯合報／社論
2007/03/23

陳水扁誇讚「中華民國第二共和」這個概念是「堅守原則，不失務實」；辜寬敏亦加附和。過了沒幾天，《中華民國第二共和憲草》出爐，國人始看到了這顆修憲氣球冉冉升空。

詎料，《第二共和憲草》的第一句話就出錯。前言的第一句話是「中華民國創立於一九一一年」，但史實卻是「中華民國創立於一九一二年」。這只算憲草的小錯，其餘大謬不然者更所在多有。

最受質疑者是前言裡的這一段話：「中華民國與中華人民共和國建立任何形式政治關係，須經對等、和平協商後，交付公民投票。」

此一條款將「中華民國」與「中華人民共和國」加以連結，且規定兩岸「建立任何形式 政治關係」，「須經協商後，（始可）交付公投」。但是，為何中華民國要在憲法中規定與中華人民共和國的此種連結？又何以憲法要規定中華民國「須」與中華人 民共和國「協商」建立「政治關係」？更何以中華民國實施公投，「須經」與中華人民共和國「協商」？

這不啻是透過中華民國憲法，授予了中華人民共和國與台灣未來的「連結權」，更授以對台灣未來的「參與權」、「協商權」，甚至「決定權」。

這一部《第二共和憲草》，其實是想方設法欲將「過去的中華民國（第一共和）」切割棄去；誰知卻竟然在憲法明文中將台灣的未來與「中華人民共和國」作此緊密連結；輕重倒置、本末顛倒、敵我不分，這樣的憲法設計，想要「切割」，竟成「連結」，豈不是非愚即妄？

起草者的立意應是想藉這段前言偷渡「兩國論」，及建立「台獨公投」的法源；卻因怕 觸怒中共及美國，不能明言，所以須有「對等協商」的但書，並亦開放「統一公投」的選項。然而，如此一來，原來這一部「兩岸分治」的憲法，至「第二共和」卻 成了「協商未來」；原來「中華民國是一主權獨立的國家」，卻成了「必須與中華人民共和國協商未來的連結體」。

此處並非主張兩岸不可「協商」，或不應「協商」；但「協商」只能在兩岸實務中依勢 推移。若在憲法明文中以這類文字來建立兩岸連結，這就絕不是解套，而是將自己的脖子送上刀砧的愚妄行徑。其實，過去多次「制憲」、「公投」的嘗試，皆造成 了台獨空間愈鬧愈小的後果；此次《第二共和憲草》倘若實現，竟以白紙黑字的憲法，明文將台灣的未來與中華人民共和國綁在一起，則是更加匪夷所思了！

尤其令人憂慮的是，台獨運動翻騰至今，仍然不敢甩掉「中華民國」四字，而只能以 「第二共和」來「自欺欺人」；但是，雖然保留了「中華民國」四字作為台獨的護身符，卻又對「去中華民國化」不留餘地，欲將「中華民國」的實質內涵完全掏 空，徒留「中華民國」四個字的皮相而已。最後的結局將是：台獨運動因丟棄不了「中華民國」四字，終難成局；而「中華民國」卻亦已掏空挖盡，有體無魂。這絕 不是「族國建造」（Nation-building），而是「族國毀滅」；台灣不可能成為「台灣共和國」，但也不再是「中華民國」了。國魂既喪，國何以 立？《第二共和憲法》不敢跨越台獨的紅線，因此就不敢完全甩掉「中華民國」，從憲草捉襟見肘的表現已可預言，這又是一場「自欺欺人」的鬧劇罷了！

《中華民國第二共和憲草》進一步掏空挖盡了「中華民國」，然非但不能回應台獨的期待，反而將台灣的未來交給了與中華人民共和國的「協商」之中。《第二共和憲草》難道真是《賣台憲草》？

Forgotten by the World, Taiwan Spins Its Wheels

Forgotten by the World, Taiwan Spins Its Wheels
China Times Editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 19, 2007

Comment: The following China Times Editorial, "Forgotten by the World, Taiwan Spins Its Wheels," reveals the predictable and catastrophic consequence of adopting democracy, a congenitally defective political system worshiped by its modern day champions, but rightly detested by America's Founding Fathers.


Thomas Paine

As Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense and champion of the American Revolution observed:
"A democracy is the most vile form of government there is!"


John Adams

As John Adams, 2nd President of the United States observed:

"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."


James Madison

As James Madison, 4th President of the United States and Father of the Constitution observed:

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death."

America's Founding Fathers attempted to safeguard against the defects of democracy by establishing a constitutional republic, a political system they believed to be vastly superior to democracy.

They believed that a constitutional republic was the political system that held the most hope of ensuring the long term preservation of natural rights and individual liberty.

They were absolutely right about a constitutional republic being immeasurably superior to democracy.

Unfortunately they were overly optimistic about the ability of a constitutional republic to avoid degenerating into a democracy.

Advocates of market anarchism know, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, that constitutional restraints such as the "separation of powers" can only delay, not permanently safeguard a republic against degenerating into a democracy.

And degenerate into democracies is exactly what both the two century old US of A and the century old R of C have done.

Over the past two decades, the Republic of China has degenerated from an admittedly flawed republic under the Two Chiangs, into a full-fledged democracy under Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian.

In case champions of democracy think that's a compliment, it's not.

Republic of China citizens living in the Taiwan region of China are now feeling the effects of this political degeneration, and paying a heavy price for their political naivete.

As you read the China Times editorial below, think of the above quotes from the Founding Fathers of America, and note the uncanny relevance they have to Taiwan's current plight.

See:
Democracy, the Worst Form of Government ever Tried
Democracy, the Worst Form of Government ever Tried, Part II
Democracy, the Worst Form of Government ever Tried, Part III

Forgotten by the World, Taiwan Spins Its Wheels
China Times Editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 19, 2007

In its recent 20th anniversary issue cover story, "The Journalist" weekly addressed a topic that receives little attention on today's Taiwan: "2007, The Lost Year," subtitled "Taiwan forgets the world, the world forsakes Taiwan."

Why the title "2007, The Lost Year?" This publication has listed several topics for this year's global agenda, including global warming countermeasures, progress with ASEAN, and the start-up of Asian currency and bond institutions. By contrast, what has Taiwan's agenda been this year? Taiwan's agenda has been the preliminary hearing for [Chen Shui-bian's] State Affairs Confidential Expenses case, the preliminary hearing for Ma Ying-jeou's Special Expenses case, and the jockeying for advantage among Blue and Green camp political stars. Put simply, Taiwan's ruling elite is utterly indifferent to topics which political elites in neighboring East Asia are focused on and busy addressing.

Some people may think that because it's only March, it's still early. But the truth is the nomination processes for the presidential and legislative elections are just getting warmed up. The major players haven't even entered the arena yet. These important issues, which concern the governments of the world, won't be anything that Taiwan's political stars care to respond to in the coming year. To be frank, the fact that "Taiwan has forgotten the outside world" is not that surprising. After all, many people are already concerned about these matters. So what if Taiwan isn't one of them? But how many people realize that many matters within Taiwan that demand attention have also been neglected, and that more and more people are indifferent to them as well?

For example, passage of the the central government's annual budget remains stalled in the legislature. In the past this was considered a serious matter that had to be passed even if it meant burning the midnight oil. But now it seems as if it makes no difference whether it passes or not. For example, the Control Yuan has been in limbo for nearly three years, close to the length of a Control Yuan member's term of office. How many major cases remain unsolved? For a time it looked as if it would start up again, but recently no more news has been forthcoming, and many on Taiwan already seem accustomed to not having a Control Yuan at all. Look at our presidential office. Everyone from presidential mansion staff to secretarial staff and accounting staff have been caught in the State Affairs Confidential Expenses storm. And yet President Chen constantly resorts to all kinds of evasions to avoid prosecution, using delaying tactics and hoping for more favorable circumstances. Last year the Red Shirt Army took to the streets repeatedly in protest. This year no one can even be bothered. The past few months have witnessed a rampant increase in robbery and rape. And yet hardly anyone remembers the premier's boasts and pledges to fight crime. As for the new prosecutor general, approved only after repeated review sessions, no sooner did he assume office than rumors of inappropriate socializing and exchanging of toasts with litigants at evening banquets spread. The litigants act as if the scandal is a matter of indifference. Will such a prosecutor general really be able to stand straight and prosecute major cases? Even if some people care, what can they do? Furthermore, our secretary of defense has insisted all year that he is not clinging to his official position, but until now he has been squatting in his office, playing word games, and acting like a smart aleck. The current minister of education talks about increasing compulsory education to 12 years, but when many teachers and parents consider who the minister of education is, a chill runs down their back.

The above examples are merely a short list off the top of our heads. Actually we could go on indefinitely. All these phenomenon add up to the same conclusion: Taiwan is spinning its wheels. No one should belittle the the system's absurdities and turn a blind eye to them. The public watches these major and minor political players rushing on and off stage, visiting here and visiting there, telling you they are doing this and that, when in fact all they are doing is taking two steps forward and two steps back, diverting our attention with "flavor of the day" controversies, then two days later, acting as if none of it ever happened!

As long as elections are involved, such controversies will be manipulated for all they are worth. Actually, next year's presidential election is one year off, and the legislative elections seven to eight months off. But it appears that the campaigns have already begun in earnest. Political rhetoric has taken the podium by storm: "Anti-Blue Polls" in the DPP party primaries, the "Rectification of Names" for state-owned enterprises, "Four Noes and One Yes," and the tearing down of Chiang Kai-shek's bronze statues. No move is subject to legal scrutiny or thoughtful debate. No one asks whether the move will provoke social polarization. As soon as the bell rings, they're out of the gates, often giving the moves euphemistic names such as "Judicial Reform," when in fact what the international media sees is: "Cultural Revolution!"

The global agenda mentioned at the beginning has utterly vanished from the domestic picture. Until now our leaders have attempted to shout cheap slogans in order to provoke cross-Straits tensions, not realizing that the opposite side of the Strait is undergoing rapid economic transformation and leading the reorganization of the East Asian strategic scene. Where are Taiwan's countermeasures? Who knows? At the same time, our leaders relentlessly seek to promote the "Rectification of Names," eliminate all vestiges of Chiang Kai-shek's legacy, and ratchet up internal social polarizaton. They remain callously indifferent to the personal safety of women on Taiwan, to the well-being of 20,000 latchkey kids, including some 16,000 school children who fix all three daily meals on their own. What can one say, except that not only has "Taiwan forgotten the world, Taiwan has even forgotten itself."

Original Chinese below:

被世界遺忘的台灣，依舊忙著在空轉
中時社論
中時電子報
2007.03.19

「新新聞」周報最近在它創刊二十周年一期的封面故事中，做了一個在目前台灣算是挺冷門的專題：「消失的二○○七」，搭配的副題是「台灣遺忘世界，世界遺棄台灣」。

為什麼說是「消失的二○○七」？該刊列出了幾項今年初以來的全球議程，包括全球暖化對策、東亞自由貿易區進展、亞洲貨幣及債券機構啟動等，而相對的在此同時台灣的年度議程是什麼？是國務機要費一審、馬英九特別費一審、藍綠天王卡位戰……。簡單的說，包括東亞近鄰的所有政治菁英最近所關注與與忙碌的議題，台灣的領導菁英不僅不在意，甚至是根本懶得理會！

或許有人會認為今年還沒過完三月，時間還早嘛！然而實情卻是總統與立委的提名熱身才剛開始，所有重頭戲都還沒登場呢！那些全球政府都在關心的重大課題，在當下乃至可預見的這一年，是不會有台灣檯面上任何天王想搭理的。講實在話，「台灣遺忘世界」也許並不會令人太驚奇，那些重要大事既已有全球那麼多人在關心，不差一個台灣嘛！但不知有多少人會察覺：就算台灣自己內部，也有不少非常嚴重且需要關注的事被忽略了，甚至是越來越多人根本都不在乎了。

譬如說，中央政府年度總預算到現在都卡在立院尚未審議通過，過去這是多嚴重的事，挑燈夜戰也要通過，但現在好像都無所謂了；再譬如說我們的監察院停擺都快三年了，算算都快屆滿一任監委任期了，想也知道不知積了多少大案沒查！前一陣子好像要啟動了，但最近又沒消息了，而如今許多人好似早已習慣了台灣沒有監察院；再看看我們的總統府，從官邸到秘書會計機要在內一堆人都陷入國務機要費的起訴風暴，但自陳總統以降卻不斷祭出各種手段閃躲，擺明就是以拖待變到底，去年還有紅衫軍嗆聲，今年連批都沒人想批了；近幾個月民間搶劫強暴行徑愈見囂張，卻已沒多少人還記得現任閣揆當初曾對拚治安所下過的豪語與承諾；至於幾番周折才通過的檢察總長，才剛上任就已傳出多起不當的夜宴酬酢，當事人卻表現的一副無所謂，至於這位檢察總長未來究竟還能不能挺起腰桿辦大案？就算有人在乎又能如何！還有，我們的國防部長從去年就說他毫不戀棧，但一直到現在他都還安穩地在位子上使勁耍嘴皮子；我們的國教據說要延長到十二年，但只要想到主其事的現任教育部長，不少教師與家長都感到一陣害怕……。

上述所列只是我們馬上想到的少數例子，我們其實還可以一直列下去，這一切現象標誌著還是那句老話：空轉！所有體制上的荒謬，大家都不以為意，所有行為上的乖張大家都視若無睹，民眾每天都看著那些檯面上的大小人物忙著上台下台，忙著巡視這裡走訪那裡，忙著告訴你他們要做這做那，究其實全都是進兩步退兩步，三不五時拋一個話題鬧兩天新聞，然後就彷彿一切都沒發生過！

但只要是一扯到選舉，勁頭又全來了！距離明年總統大選其實還有一年，距離年底立委選舉也還有七八個月，但彷彿選戰現在就已開打，所有意識形態的語言與操作都提前登場：排藍民調、國營事業正名、四要一沒有、拆蔣中正銅像……，所有的動作不管合不合法，也不問是否需經任何審慎的研議與討論，更不問有否激化社會對立，反正一聲令下就硬幹了，自己在內部動不動就美其名曰「轉型正義」，國外媒體對台灣這一切所下的註腳卻是：「文革」！

回頭再來看看我們一開始所提及的全球議題，在台灣內部倒好像真是徹底消失了！我們的領導人迄今為止還不斷企圖藉玩弄廉價口號以激化兩岸關係，殊不知此刻對岸的政經體制正在快速轉型，也正在主導東亞區域的快速整合，台灣的對策在哪裡？不知道！同樣的，我們的領導人也不斷企圖藉由正名、去蔣化等操作以激化社會內部的對立，卻對台灣當下的婦女人身安全亮起紅燈，對有多達兩萬多名學童獨立居住，有十六萬多名學童每天自理三餐的現象渾然無所覺。只能說：台灣不僅遺忘了世界，台灣其實還輕忽了自己！

Opposing Views on Ma Ying-jeou's Discretionary Fund Case

Opposing Views on Ma Ying-jeou's Discretionary Fund Case
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 18, 2007

The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law
-- Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC)

Comment: As Aristotle noted, the only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law. Conversely, any state in which men are unequal before the law, is ipso facto, an unstable state.

And so it is with the Taiwan region of China. Taiwan under today's Taiwan independence Green Terror is an unstable state. On today's Taiwan, there is no black and white, there is only blue and green (mei you hei bai, zi you lan luu), meaning that under Pan Green misrule, there is no right or wrong, there is only one's political coloration.

To wit, the trumped-up charge against Ma Ying-jeou for "embezzlement."


Ma Ying-jeou, after being indicted on trumped-up charges of embezzlement by Deep Green inquisitor Eric Chen

Now I am not a "Ma mi" (a fan of Ma Ying-jeou). I am the farthest thing from a "Ma mi." I have no trouble whatsoever believing any number of unflattering accusations leveled against Ma Ying-jeou, including the charge that he lacks the necessary spine to defend Pan Blue political values.

But embezzlement?

Please, spare me!

No, Ma Ying-jeou is Mr. Clean. The only reason he has been indicted by a Deep Green hatchet man, is that he is a deadly threat to continued Pan Green rule in 2008.


Public Prosecutor Eric Chen's laughably Orwellian poster reads: "Eric Chen, Conscience. A Solomonic legal judgment. We are willing to wait. We are willing to believe. A pro-democracy activist in his youth, non-partisan, concerned only with right and wrong, unconcerned with political coloration, from start to finish, a public prosecutor concerned only with justice"


Hou Kuan-ren, Eric Chen clone

Opposing Views on Ma Ying-jeou's Discretionary Fund Case
United Daily News editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 18, 2007

Regarding the provision that "Half of the expenditures in one's Discretionary Fund account do not require receipts," the court's rulings in the Two Hsus case and the Ma Ying-jeou case are like night and day. Eric Chen of the High Court Public Prosecutor's Anti-corruption Center said that as long as one spends all the money, then one is in the clear. Although Chen Ming-chin of the Tainan Public Prosecutor's Office agreed that the Two Hsus had indeed spent all the money in their Discretionary Fund account, he also went to great lengths to point out that making use of this portion of the Discretionary Fund account did not fit the definition of "embezzlement and fraudulent acquisition of wealth," nor did it constitute criminal intent.

In other words, according to the above standard, even if the Two Hsus' Discretionary Fund case had been the same as Ma Ying-jeou's case, and the Two Hsus hadn't spent all the money in their accounts, they would still not be subject to indictment. This is the biggest difference in the legal opinions offered by the two prosecutors. If we examine the manner in which the "Half of the expenditures in one's Discretionary Fund account do not require receipts" clause has been observed in real life over the past 30 years, we should have no trouble determining which of the two opinions shows greater respect for reality and conforms more closely with the public's understanding of the law.

First, let's examine the provision that in order to be charged with embezzlement, one must "take advantage of opportunities provided by one's office to obtain funds through deceit," and in doing so cause the deceived party (in this case accounting personnel) to authorize the funds in question. In order to charge Ma Ying-jeou with this crime, it is necessary to prove not only that Ma Ying-jeou resorted to deceit, but also that accounting personnel were deceived.

In his bill of indictment, Public Prosecutor Hou Kuan-ren accused Ma Ying-jeou of "knowing perfectly well that he had used receipts to apply for special expenses at the beginning of the month, and had assured accounting personnel that in the coming days disbursements would be made. Based on such a belief, accounting personnel were willing to make advance payments at the beginning of the month." But in January 2004, the system was changed to payment in the middle of the month. That was when "Ma Ying-jeou informed accounting personnel that he had already made disbursements. Accounting personnel, based on such beliefs, authorized advance payments." This is what Hou Kuan-ren considers damning evidence of "deceit" on the part of Ma Ying-jeou and incontrovertible evidence that accounting personnel "were deceived."

In the Two Hsus case, which also involved payment of special expenses at the beginning of the month, Public Prosecutor Chen Ming-chin of the Tainan Public Prosecutor's Office solicited opinions and reports from the Ministry of Audit, the Executive Yuan, and the Legislative Yuan, as well as historical precedents.

He arrived at a very different opinion of this administrative procedure. He pointed out that "The defendant evinced no intent to deceive. The accounting personnel performed their duties in accordance with normal procedure and did nothing wrong. As far as this kind of administrative procedure is concerned, any effort to accuse the defendant of attempting to deceive accounting personnel, or of making false assurances to accounting personnel regarding future disbursements, will inevitably give people the mistaken impression that one is either fixated on an unwarranted conclusion or attempting to frame the accused."

According to the High Court Public Prosecutor, everyone has followed standard operating procedure for years, with the sole exception of one particular defendant who has "continuously taken advantage of the opportunities afforded by his official duties to practice deceit, forcing accounting personnel to make improper payments, resulting in criminal conduct." But Public Prosecutor Chen Ming-chin of the Tainan Public Prosecutor's Office believes that such accusations amount to being "fixated on an unwarranted conclusion or attempting to frame the accused." The Tainan Public Prosecutor and the High Court Public Prosecutor's views are diametrically opposed. So which view accords more closely with the facts? Perhaps we should consult administrative officials throughout the nation and their accounting departments.

Again, let's look at the question of criminal intent. Eric Chen and Hou Kuan-ren accused Ma Ying-jeou of "resorting to deceit and getting accounting personnel in trouble" by improperly authorizing funds. They also accused Ma Ying-jeou of "harboring clear criminal intent." As for Ma Ying-jeou's repeated declarations that "he believed the funds were private funds and not public funds," they were dismissed as denials of guilt without any credibility.

Public Prosecutor Chen Ming-chin of the Tainan Public Prosecutor's Office believes that "Historically speaking the Discretionary Fund has been interpreted loosely. Real world practice has established the administrator's Discretionary Fund as a form of supplemental income. As long as the official substitutes receipts for original certificates, the relevant auditing units have no further need for verification procedures. Since verification is already complete, there is no question of returning any balance. Based on this premise, whether the special expense allowance has become a disguised form of official salary, resulting in a situation in which an official may not recognize the special expense allowance as illegal, remains a question. The defendant's criminal intent is something the public prosecutor will find difficult to prove. Nor is the public prosecutor likely to have enough material evidence to prove that the Discretionary Fund is not supposed to be a form of supplemental income." Such a perspective is diametrically opposed to Hou Kuan-ren's.

Perhaps the question of criminal intent is going to be a case of "'Sez you, sez me." Given the same facts, different public prosecutors or judges may arrive at different conclusions. But Public Prosecutor Chen Ming-chin of the Tainan Public Prosecutor's Office said that the special expense controversy is obviously the result of a defect in the system. Based on the principle that laws must be clear and "nulla poena sine lege" (no penalty without a law), one cannot force the administrator applying for funds to assume all the risk. When there is little reason for suspicion, and the law is unclear, the accused must be given the benefit of the doubt. This surely was Chen Ming-chin's reasoning. High Court Public Prosecutor Eric Chen and Hou Kuan-ren may insist that there is abundant reason for suspicion, but if that truly is the case, why didn't they indict the so-called "Four Princes of the DPP" (the four political stars of the Pan Green camp, Su Tseng-chang, Frank Hsieh, Annette Lu, and Yu Hsi-kuen), based on the same set of standards? This is the most egregious defect in terms of due process and real world justice.

Did Ma Ying-jeou obtain special expenses by means of deceit? This seemingly simple question has elicited diametrically opposite answers from two public prosecutors.

Original Chinese below:

聯合報《社論》
南轅北轍：馬英九是否以詐術騙取特別費？
2007.03.18

「二許案」與「馬案」，對於特別費「不需單據的一半」之認定天差地別。高檢查黑中心的陳瑞仁檢察官說，只要花完就沒事；然而，南檢的陳明進檢察官固然認定二許「花完了」，但他用更大的篇幅指出，無論如何，這部分不符「貪汙詐取財物罪」的構成要件，也不具犯罪故意。

也 就是說，根據此一標準，即使二許的特別費在「不要單據的一半」，就像馬英九一樣被檢察官認定沒有花完，也不會被起訴。這才是兩地檢方在法律見解及適用上最 大的差異。參照三十年來「不要單據的一半特別費」之申領情形，比較這兩種不同的見解，當可看出何者更貼近事實，亦即何者較能獲得國民的法律感情的認同。

先看貪汙治罪條例所謂「利用職務上機會詐取財物罪」的構成要件，即犯罪者須施用「詐術」，並使被騙者（在特別費案中即指會計人員）交付財物。因此，起訴馬英九本項罪名，即須認定馬英九施用「詐術」，而會計人員亦有「被騙」的情形。

侯 寬仁檢察官在起訴書中指馬英九「主觀上明知月初以領據請領特別費，其實已向會計人員承諾來日會有支出之事實，而會計人員亦基於此種確信，始願於月初先行支 付」，而九十三年一月起改為月中領取，亦是「馬英九向會計人員表示已有支出事實，會計人員亦基於此種確信償其墊款」。這就是侯寬仁所認定的馬英九施行「詐 術」，及會計人員「受騙」而交付財物的犯罪要件。

同樣是月初具領的二許特別費案， 南檢陳明進檢察官在考察審計部、行政院以及立法院等各方的意見和報告，以及歷年的慣例後，對這樣的行政流程卻作出不同的評量，他指出：「……被告無任何積 極施用詐術之行為，會計人員依例行事，亦無任何陷於錯誤情事……針對此種行政運作模式，強行擬制為被告有向會計人員施用詐術，即向會計人員詐稱未來必將如 何使用的承諾，不免令人有牽強附會或羅織罪名之誤解。」

高檢將這種行之有年、眾人 皆遵照辦理的行政流程，謂為某一被告「連續利用職務上機會使用詐術，使會計人員陷於錯誤交付財物，而構成犯罪」；但南檢的陳明進檢察官卻認為，倘作此種指 控，不啻「牽強附會、羅織罪名」。南檢與高檢的觀點南轅北轍，何種見解較符合事實？恐怕要問問全國的首長，以及各單位的會計人員了。

再看主觀犯罪故意的問題。當陳瑞仁和侯寬仁認為馬英九「施用詐術、令會計人員陷於錯誤」而交付財物時，就已同時認定馬英九「不法所有之意圖彰彰甚明」。至於馬英九第三次應訊表示「主觀上認為是私款非公款」，那是卸責之詞，不予採信。

南 檢陳明進檢察官對這個問題則認為：「……歷年沿革特別費採寬鬆認定……實務上幾已定性為首長實質薪資補貼，首長主觀上亦多認為係實質薪資補貼……只要機關 首長以領據代替原始憑證列報後，相關審計單位並不需要再進行實質核銷手續，如既已完成核銷，則應無事後繳回與否之問題……在此前提下，是否有成為變相補貼 首長薪資之一部分，而造成首長對此是否具有違法之認知，不無疑問……被告主觀犯意檢察官難以舉證，檢察官亦無足夠實務資料，可以證明特別費完全沒有實質補 貼之性質……。」此種觀點，又與侯寬仁的見解完全相反。

主觀犯意問題，恐怕是見仁 見智；同樣的案件事實，不同的檢察官或法官也許認定結果不同。但南檢陳明進檢察官說，關於特別費領用發生的爭議，顯見制度之瑕疵，本於「法明確性」和「罪 刑法定原則」，不能全然讓領用首長承擔風險。罪疑惟輕，法律不明確時則朝對被告有利的方向推闡，應當是南檢陳明進作此決定的考慮；而高檢陳瑞仁和侯寬仁要 「罪疑惟重」亦無不可，但他們竟然未將其手中四大天王等案以同步、同標準處理，則在程序正義及實質正義上兩皆有虧，是最大的汙點。

總之，馬英九是否以詐術騙取特別費？此一看似簡單的問題，卻在二地檢方出現南轅北轍的認定。

Walking on Two Legs: Conflict Management in the Taiwan Strait

Walking on Two Legs: Conflict Management in the Taiwan Strait
by Ma Ying-jeou
translated by Bevin Chu
March 12, 2007

Comments: Apparently Ma Ying-jeou didn't get the memo.

So here it is:

The Cold War is over. Mainland China is no longer your enemy. The US government is no longer your friend.

Walking on Two Legs: Conflict Management in the Taiwan Strait
by Ma Ying-jeou
translated by Bevin Chu
March 12, 2007

As many observers have pointed out, cross-Straits issues concern not only the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, but also the Asian-Pacific region and foreign policy, because it may be the only issue that could provoke war between the United States, the world's only remaining superpower, and Communist-ruled mainland China, which has the world's largest population. If war were to break out, not only would regional trade and development be brought to a halt, nations in the region might be forced to choose between supporting and resisting the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), precipitating long-term structural changes in the strategic environment of the Asian-Pacific region.

At a deeper level, I would especially like to point out three major negative developments affecting the security of both sides of the Taiwan Strait in the past several years. First, the rapid and large-scale development of Communist Chinese military forces.

In November 2006, the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, established at the request of the US Congress, made public its annual congressional report.

One of its main conclusions was "Many experts have already arrived at an important consensus, that between 2008 and 2015, if a conflict arises, or tension increases between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, and the US decides that it must assist Taiwan, the United States military will experience a Window of Vulnerability."

In other words, many of the CCP's Taiwan-oriented military modernization plans, including submarines, destroyers, cruise missiles, as well as high mobility ballistic missiles, new style Command, Control, Communications, Computer, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaisance Systems (C4ISR), as well as attack plans, may all be deployed around 2008, or shortly thereafter.

Meanwhile, the measures that the United States military may use to hinder the Chinese Communists, including guided missile defense systems, nearshore military capabilities, as well as comprehensive antisubmarine warfare networks, may not have adequate strength until 2015.

This will seriously reduce the ability of American military forces to intimidate the CCP, and simultaneously increase the cost of US intervention. Secondly, since 2000, the ruling DPP has never attempted to establish any form of relations with the newly-awaken Dragon of the East. Even more disadvantageous is the fact that the DPP stops at nothing to provoke the CCP, and frequently manufactures tensions between the US and the CCP.

One week ago, President Chen made yet another shocking statement: "Taiwan must become independent! Taiwan demands a new constitution! Taiwan must carry out the Rectification of Names! Taiwan demands economic development!" Since 2002, as we can see, Chen Shui-bian has set off a series of bombshells: "one country on each side," "referendum," "authoring a new constitution," "the balance of terror," as well as "abolishing the Guidelines for National Unification," and "Four Yeses and One No."

Many analysts think the DPP has already begun pursuing "de jure Taiwan independence." Because of election considerations, such a development may determine Taiwan's political climate for the coming year. Whether this development leads to tensions between the two sides of the Strait is not something that concerns either Chen Shui-bian or the DPP in the slightest.

Thirdly, despite the hardline standoff between their governments, the public on both sides of the Taiwan Strait continue to establish close economic and cultural relations. This, in today's world, is a unique situation.

However the DPP government turns a blind eye to the economic and cultural needs of millions who travel, trade, invest, and receive educations on the mainland.

In other countries such activities are fundamental to market liberalization and globalization, but some DPP political figures actually denounce such activities as "selling out Taiwan."

Even sadder, when people from Taiwan struggle alone on the outside, all they hear is insults and criticisms about "selling out Taiwan." This has cut them to the quick and demeaned their feelings for Taiwan. Their alienation has in turn strengthened the DPP's contempt for both economic considerations and human feelings.

In addition, such a vicious cycle has created significant internal fissures within Taiwan's society. One positive development, amidst the above three major negative developments, is that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait have experienced a rapid increase in economic and cultural exchanges over the past several years.

According to figures published by the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC), cross-Straits trade between 1987 and 2006 has already amounted to 562.4 billion US dollars. As for the proportion of cross-Straits trade, Taiwan comprises approximately 5% of the mainland's trade, while the mainland accounts for 20% of Taiwan's trade.

Over the past ten years, Taiwan has enjoyed a favorable 244 billion US dollar trade balance with the mainland. Taking only 2006 (up to November) as an example, cross-Straits trade volume exceeded 80 billon US dollars, including the export of 57 billion US dollars and the import of 23 billion US dollars. In other words, Taiwan enjoyed a favorable balance of 34 billion US dollars.

At the same time, Taiwan's total world trade surplus was only 18.3 billion US dollars. In other words, without the mainland market, Taiwan would already have had an unfavorable balance of trade. In terms of investments, according to Ministry of Economic Affairs figures, as of 2006 Taipei had already authorized 35,542 investments on the mainland totalling 54.9 billion US dollars.

Mainland China is currently Taiwan's largest investor, accounting for 67.35% of Taiwan's total outside investments. Beijing's official figures show that since 1991, Taiwan had at least 72,285 investments on the mainland, amounting to 100 billion US dollars. In 2006, Taiwan remitted to and collected from mainland China receipts totalling approximately 180 billion US dollars, nearly ten times the amount in 2002.

That is why I refer to this trend as a positive development, instead of what the DPP calls a "hollowing out of the economy," not merely because it is a contribution to Taiwan's economy, but because it is helpful to the stability of cross-Straits relations.

For example, Taiwan's investments and human resources on the mainland have undoubtedly made a significant contribution to the mainland's economic development.

Therefore CCP authorities, at either the central government or local level, all appreciate the role Taiwan's business people have made to mainland economic development, career opportunities, and the upgrading of technology.

Close exchanges across the Taiwan Strait also help each side to understand the other's anxieties, expectations, and constraints. As a result of direct contacts, Taiwan's elites and public can begin to appreciate mainland China's political system and ideological principles and constraints. At the same time, more and more mainland elites and members of the public can better understand Taiwan's system of democracy and its lively political environment.

The above, I believe, can be helpful to the long-term benefit of Taiwan as well as mainland China. In my opinion, mainland China is not exclusively a threat, it is also an opportunity. If, as many DPP public figures insist, we treat mainland China exclusively as a threat, then we will be misled and unable to discover the opportunities it has to offer.

Similarly, if we regard mainland China exclusively as an opportunity, that is also a mistake. The mainland is simultaneously a threat and an opportunity. This will be the case for a long time to come.

In order to resist the Chinese Communist threat, Taiwan should adopt a kind of "Two-handed Strategy." First, on the basis of the 1992 Consensus, or perhaps "One China, Two Interpretations," Taiwan should re-establish the dialogue with the Chinese Communist Party that was interrupted in 1999. By means of dialogue, both sides of the Taiwan Strait may be able, by direct contact, to negotiate a modus vivendi that allows Taiwan more space and the opportunity to participate in international activities.

Once both sides of the Taiwan Strait have established sufficient trust and good will, we may even be able to look forward to a negotiated peace agreement. Next, in order to resist Chinese Communist threats, the ROC must also maintain a solid national defense. But we do not agree with the DPP's view that Taiwan should develop an "offensive approach to national defense."

An offensive approach to national defense would not not be feasible unless Taiwan develops weapons of mass destruction (WMD), otherwise any other deterrent would have not real effect. The danger of an "offensive approach to national defense" is that it would undoubtedly invite international intervention, even a CCP "first strike." We believe that the ROC's national defense posture should be to arm ourselves only to the point where the CCP cannot be confident of a successful "first strike."

As long as the CCP cannot be confident that it can achieve such goal, its strategic calculations will remain difficult, and the temptation to launch a surprise attack will be diminished. In order to become "a nut too tough to bite," the ROC should carry out national defense reforms while simultaneously purchasing advanced weapons from overseas.

Taking advantage of the opportunities offered by the mainland also allows us to adopt a "Two-handed Strategy." On the one hand, both sides should sit down and reach an agreement on direct flights. Not only would this immediately and significantly increase cross-Straits economic activity, it would also promote the first large-scale direct contacts in cross-Straits history. The impact on economic and cultural exchanges would be immeasurable.

The political impact would also be beneficial; we could simultaneously forsee a reduction in the danger of war.

But, direct links would not merely bring positive results for both sides of the Taiwan Strait. They would also help safeguard investments, promote joint crime-fighting, intellectual property rights protection, and other long-unresolved questions, long neglected by the DPP's "Three Noes" policy (no contacts, no negotiations, no compromises).

I agree whole-heartedly in the necessity of cross-Straits "conflict management." The key word being "management." Overseas visitors may not realize that the DPP government defines cross-Straits relations as a "reunification vs. independence issue."

I emphatically disagree with this definition. Because no matter whether one is pro-reunification or pro-independence, neither conforms to the current wishes of the majority of people on Taiwan. According to numerous surveys, even officially-sponsored surveys, the results show that many of those who "identify with Taiwan" do not support Taiwan independence.

But just as the proverb which says "God helps those who help themselves," I believe that the "Walking on Two Legs" policy and the "Two-handed Strategy" offer a good start for Taiwan. Only by blazing a new trail and setting a new precedent, can we establish cross-Straits peace and prosperity.

Original Chinese below:

兩條腿走路：
台海的衝突管理
馬英九
三月十二日

正如同許多觀察家所指出的，台海問題並不僅攸關兩岸，而且是亞太地區的外交政策問題。因為它可能是唯一會引發世界唯一超強的美國，與最多人口的中共兩國之間戰爭的重大議題。一旦戰爭爆發，區域的貿易與發展不但會中斷，也可能會迫使區域各國必須在支持與對抗中共之間做出選擇，因而造成亞太地區戰略環境與結構長久性的改變。

再深入一點來說，我要特別指出在過去幾年，影響到台海安全與兩岸關係的三大負面發展。首先，中共軍力的快速與大規模現代化發展

2006年11月，由美國國會所要求成立的「美中經濟安全檢討委員會」(US- China Economic and Security Review Commission)公布了對國會的年度報告。

其中一個主要結論就是，「許多專家業已形成了一項重要共識，那就是在2008到2015年之間，如果兩岸之間出現衝突或緊張情況，而美國決定要協援台灣的話，美軍將會出現一個「脆弱之窗」(Window of Vulnerability)。

也就是說，中共許多針對台灣的軍事現代化計劃，包括潛艦、驅逐艦、巡弋飛彈以及具高度機動性的彈道飛彈、新式指管通情電監偵(C4ISR)系統，以及攻擊計劃等等，都很有可能會在2008年左右，或在之後的一段短暫時間內完成部署。

然而，美軍可以用來阻絕中共這些攻勢的措施與作為，包括飛彈防禦系統、近岸打擊兵力以及具整合性的反潛戰網絡等，卻可能在2015年前仍無法發揮戰力。

這將會嚴重降低美國軍力用來嚇阻中共的效果，同時也會增加美國進行干涉的成本。」第二，自2000年之後，民進黨政府從未嘗試要對這覺醒的東方巨龍進行任何形式上的交往。更為不利的是，民進黨還無所不用其極地刺激中共，並且還常常造成美國與中共這兩個強權之間關係的緊張。

就在一個禮拜前，我們的陳總統又再一次地發表了震撼性的談話：「台灣要獨立！台灣要新憲！台灣要正名！台灣要經濟發展！」誠如各位所看到的，自2002年後，陳水扁已經施放了一連串的震撼彈。「一邊一國」、「公民投票」、「制定新憲」、「恐怖平衡」以及「廢除國統綱領」到現在的「四要一沒有」，

許多分析家認為現在民進黨已經開始追求「法理台獨」。由於選舉的需要，這樣的發展趨勢很可能會主導著台灣未來一年的政治議題。對於是否會造成兩岸之間的緊張局勢，陳水扁和民進黨並不在乎。

第三，在雙方政府的強硬對立之下，台海兩邊的民眾持續在經濟上與文化上建立起密切交流關係。這是今天世界上最為獨特的情況之一。

然而對於數以百萬計的民眾在大陸旅遊、貿易、投資、教育，以及其他許多在經濟與文化方面的需要，民進黨政府完全視若無睹。

在其他國家內，這些活動是最基本的市場自由化與全球化的交流與活動，但一些民進黨政治人物卻污名化為「賣台」。

更令人痛心地是，當台灣人民獨自在外奮鬥的時候，耳朵裡聽到的卻是像「賣台」這類的污辱與批評。這在實質上已傷害了他們對於台灣這塊土地的情感。他們的疏離感轉過來又強化民進黨對於經濟與人性上的追?求嗤之以鼻。

此外，這樣的惡性循環也造成了台灣社會內部的重大裂痕。一項正面發展所幸，除了以上三大負面發展之外，在過去幾年還有一項正面的發展趨勢出現，那就是兩岸在經濟與文化交流上的快速成長。

根據陸委會的資料顯示，從1987到 2006年，兩岸的貿易總額已經累計達到了5,624億美元。至於兩岸貿易的比例，台灣約佔了中共對外貿易總額的5％；中共則佔了台灣對外貿易總額的 20％。

在過去十年間，台灣對大陸總共享有2,440億美元的順差。只以2006年（到11月）為例，兩岸的貿易額超過了 800億美元，其中包括了出口的570億美元，以及進口的230億美元，也就是說，台灣享有順差340億美元。

然而，在同一時期，台灣的全球貿易順差卻只有183億美元。換言之，如果沒有大陸市場，台灣早已是一個入超國了。在投資方面，根據我國經濟部的資料，到2006年為止，台北已經批准了35,542件的對大陸投資案，總額達到了549億美元。

中國大陸目前是台灣最大的投資對象，去年佔了台灣對外投資總額的67.35％。北京的官方資料則顯示出，自1991年，台灣對大陸累積投資案已至少有72,285件，總額達到了 1,000億美元。在2006年，台灣對中國大陸匯出及匯入款總額約有1,800億美元，這幾乎是2002年數字的十倍。

我之所以會像這個趨勢稱為「正面」發展，而不是民進黨所聲稱的「經濟空洞化」，不僅僅是因為這對於台灣的經濟福祉有所貢獻，更是因為這個發展有助於兩岸關係的穩定。

舉例而言，台灣對中國大陸在投資與人力資源上的挹注，無疑地會對大陸的經濟發展形成重大貢獻。

所以中共當局不論是中央或地方政府對於台商在其經濟發展、人員就業、以及技術提升上的付出都能感然於心。

海峽兩岸間的密切交流也幫助了彼此理解到對方的憂慮、期待以及限制。藉由直接的連繫，台灣社會的菁英與民眾開始能體會到中國大陸的政治系統與意識形態中的原則與其侷限。與此同時，也有越來越多的大陸菁英與一般民眾能夠了解台灣的民主制度以及活潑不羈的政治活動。

以上種種，我相信都會有助於台灣以及中國大陸兩者的長遠利益。在我看來，中國大陸不但是個「威脅」，也是個「機會」。如果像許多民進黨人士所言，只把中國大陸當做是個「威脅」，那麼我們就會被誤導而無法發掘到它所提供的「機會」。

同樣地，如果只把中國大陸當成是一塊充滿「機會」的寶地也是錯誤的。大陸同時是「威脅」，也是「機會」，這在未來很長的一段時間都會是如此。

為了抵抗中共的威脅，台灣應該採取一種「兩手策略」。首先，台灣應該在「九二共識」，或是「一中各表」的基礎上，重新與中共展開自1999年即中斷至今的對話。藉由雙邊對話，
海峽兩邊可以在彼此直接交往的情況下，談判出所謂的「活路模式」(modus vivendi)，讓台灣有更多空間可以參與國際活動。

當台海雙方有足夠的信任與善意後，「和平協議」的談判亦可預見。其次，為了抵禦來自中共的威脅，台灣還必須要維持堅實的國防實力。不過，我們卻不同意民進黨所提，台灣應該發展「攻勢國防」的看法。

攻勢國防」之所以不可行，是因為除非台灣發展出大規模毀滅性武器，否則任何其他的嚇阻都沒有實效；「攻勢國防」之所以危險，是因為它必將引起國際干涉，甚至是中共的先發攻擊。我們認為，台灣的國防態勢應該是要武裝到中共沒有把握可以成功地發動「第一擊」。

只要中共沒有自信能達到這樣的目標，其戰略盤算就會變得複雜，同時奇襲攻台的誘因也會減少。為了成為一顆「咬不動的堅果」，台灣應該持續進行國防改革，同時繼續向國外採購先進武器。

要利用中國大陸的「機會」也可以採取「兩手策略」。一方面，雙方應該坐下來好好就直航達成協議。這不僅立即大幅促進海峽兩岸的經濟活動，也會實現兩岸歷史上第一次大規模的直接往來，這在經濟與文化交流上的影響將十分巨大。

在政治上的影響也會是利多；同時可以預見地，戰爭的危險將會顯著地減少。

不過，直航並非只能為雙方帶來正面結果。包括投資保障、共同打擊犯罪、智慧財產權的保護等等長久以來懸而未決的問題，一直被民進黨政府的「三不」政策（不接觸、不談判、不妥協）忽略。

我衷心地認同「衝突管理」在兩岸關係的必要性。這其中的關鍵字是「管理」。來自國外的貴客或許不特別知道，民進黨政府把兩岸關係定位為「統獨關係」。

但我非常不同意這個定位。因為不管是「統」或「獨」，都不符合目前台灣大多數人民的期望。根據許多調查資料，甚至是官方所主辦的調查都顯示，許多「台灣認同」的人並不支持「台獨政策」。

但正如一句諺語所說：「天助自助者。」我相信我所提到的「兩條腿走路」以及兩套「兩手策略」可以為台灣提供了一個好的開始，藉此發展出新的道路與典則，也才有可能建立出一個和平而繁榮的台海局勢。

Chen Tsung-ming should resign as Prosecutor General

Unable to explain his presence at a banquet,
Chen Tsung-ming should resign as Prosecutor General
United Daily News Editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 4, 2007


Chen Tsung-ming, Prosecutor General

Comment: Chen Tsung-ming is the first ever Prosecutor General of the ROC. His counterpart in the US would be the attorney general. The position of prosecutor general carries with it enormous responsibility, and requires a person of Solomonic impartiality. Chen Tsung-ming does not even remotely qualify as such a person. In fact; he is its diametric opposite. He is exactly the kind of oily "player," who goes along to get along, that one would expect from a cronyist dictatorship. The following United Daily News Editorial is absolutely correct in demanding his resignation.

Unable to explain his presence at a banquet,
Chen Tsung-ming should resign as Prosecutor General
United Daily News Editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
March 4, 2007

Chen Tsung-ming, who was appointed prosecutor general amidst intense controversy, has not only forgotten the solemn pledge he made to the legislature, he doesn't even appreciate the discretion that his new role requires. Before and after Chinese New Year, he attended banquets held by the First Family's doctor Huang Fang-yen, a defendant in the gift certificate scandal. Following exposure by the media, Chen Tsung-ming unrepentantly referred to his actions as "No big deal!" Is such a prosecutor general worthy of the people's and the judiciary's confidence?

The purpose of establishing the prosecutor general system is to reduce the influence of politics over the prosecutorial system, thereby promoting judicial independence. Chen Tsung-ming, as the first ever prosecutor general, has not only neglected his duty in this regard, he has demonstrated sheer indifference to the reputation of the judiciary. That is why he dared to cross the line of demarcation between proper and improper conduct.

We haven't even mentioned the disreputable go-between role Huang Fang Yan played in the Sogo gift certificate case, in which he performed the role of spin-controller for the First Family, also something the man in the street is well aware of. If Chen Tsung-ming, in response to such a sensitive banquet invitation, could attend as if doing so was no big deal, ignoring the distinction between public and private interests, does that mean that officials of the judiciary and those involved in judicial cases may fraternize and even exchange toasts with each other, without any constraints?

Even more serious is the fact that afterwards he did not come clean, but publicly lied. Regarding the get together, Chen Tsung-ming stated that a mutual friend invited them, that he and Huang Fang-yen "don't know each other all that well." Huang Fang-yen however stated that both of them have experienced family tragedies and frequently "discuss matters of the heart." Regarding the meeting time, Chen Tsung-ming declared that it went on for only an hour, but a neighbor and the gatekeeper revealed that he stopped by on the same day for over four hours, and that this was not the only occasion. He had done so several times before and after Chinese New Year. Based on the discrepancies in his explanations, Chen Tsung-ming has been neither frank nor forthcoming, and appears to be covering up certain facts.

Because Chen Tsung-ming has been less than candid, this has increased the outside world's suspicions towards him and Huang Fan-yen. If in fact they enjoy a personal friendship, why the huge gap between their statements? Why the need to lie about the duration of their meeting? If the statements of the gatekeeper and the neighbor are not in error, then before and after Chinese New Year he visited the Huang family several times, in which case the situation arouses suspicion, because such frequent visits far exceed those that occur between normal friends. In which case, why was Chen Tsung-ming visiting the Huang family so frequently? What exactly did the two talk about? Did their talks involve the violation of any oaths of office? Chen Tsung-ming must respond to these questions in detail before the legislature. Only by doing so will he be able to allow people from all walks of life to determine whether he is still fit to assume the duties of prosecutor general.

During the Legislative Yuan's review of the prosector general's qualifications, the most controversial point was Chen Tsung-ming's complex web of contacts. Chen Tsung-ming is distinguished by his ability to exploit personal relations, i.e., "guang xi." The main reason the People First Party repaid him by voting for his approval was his friendly relations with James Soong. Conversely speaking, this kind of gregarious, "ominivorous" personality trait, is the principle reason the judiciary is unable to avoid hindrance by favoritism. In other words, Chen Tsung-ming achieved prominence because of his personal relationships, but at the same time his personal relationships are an obstacle in the way of his capacity for judicial independence. We can see from the Huang family banquet incident that it is basically unrealistic to expect an official prone to micromanagement to maintain judicial impartiality.

In any normal nation under the rule of law, any official of the judiciary who privately fraternizes with parties directly or indirectly involved in a legal case, is in violation of professional ethics, and subject to severe punishment. If we wish to establish a historical precedent on Taiwan, making the first-ever prosecutor general a role model worthy of emulation, then Chen Tsung-ming's transgressions must be subjected to the strictest investigation, and may not be glossed over. Not only must the Legislative Yuan demand that Chen Tsung-ming submit an exhaustive report of his conduct, it should form a special committee to investigate the facts of the case. If it discovers that Chen practiced favoritism, acted improperly, or perjured himself, it must demand that Chen Tsung-ming resign the office of prosecutor general. First, this will ensure that the integrity of the judiciary has not been compromised during the banquets he attended; Second, this will motivate Chen Tsung-ming to become more conscious of his solemn duty; Third, this will resolve suspicions on the part of other prosecutors and society as a whole.

We can see from the record of President Chen's behavior how it is easy it is for a nation's political system to be destroyed at the hands of a single individual. The prosecutor general system has just been initiated. It must not be destroyed by a single banquet that cannot be accounted for. This is an account that Chen Tsung-ming must settle, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Original Chinese below:

聯合報社論
交代不清夜宴始末，
陳聰明即應辭檢察總長　
2007.03.04

方在爭議中出任檢察總長，陳聰明不僅旋即忘卻他對國會的莊嚴承諾，更不知自己的新角色有何分寸需要謹守，他在春節前後接連赴涉及禮券醜聞的第一醫師黃芳彥家夜宴。被媒體揭發後，陳聰明似乎仍不以為忤，自稱「這沒什麼啊！」這樣的檢察總長，還值得人民和司法信賴嗎？

檢察總長制度的設置，目的是在減少政治對檢察系統的控制，從而提升司法的獨立。陳聰明枉為首屆檢察總長，對這項職務的操持非但毫無警覺，更不把司法榮譽的維持放在心上，也因此，他才會連最起碼的形式迴避的界線都敢踐踏。

且不說黃芳彥在ＳＯＧＯ禮券案中不名譽的穿梭角色，他為第一家庭「打點」對外關係，亦是路人皆知的事。對如此敏感的邀宴，陳聰明如果可以若無其事地赴約，還覺得於公於私皆無損；那麼，今後所有司法官與案件關係人酬酢交往，是不是也都可以無所禁忌？

更嚴重的，是他事後的不坦白，甚至公開說謊。對於因何聚會，陳聰明說是友人居間邀約，他與黃芳彥並「不相熟」；黃芳彥則稱，兩人都有過家庭變故，經常聊天「談心事」。對於聚會時間，陳聰明聲稱只去了一小時，但鄰居和門房均稱他被爆料當日即逗留了四小時，且不僅這次，春節前後來過數回。從這些說詞的出入看，陳聰明並沒有對社會開誠布公，且似乎在刻意掩蓋某些事實。

正由於陳聰明的缺乏坦誠，更加深了外界對他和黃芳彥夜會所為何來的質疑。如果真是私人交誼，為何雙方說詞落差那麼大？又為何需要捏造聚會時間？而如果門房和鄰居的說法無誤，他在春節前後曾數度造訪黃家，那麼情況即益發啟人疑竇，因為那樣的頻率，已遠超乎朋友間交往拜會之常情。那麼，陳聰明究竟為何頻繁造訪黃家？雙方究竟談了什麼？有沒有涉及任何職務之承諾？這些，陳聰明都有必要詳盡將經過向國會提出說明，才能讓各界了解他是否仍堪擔當檢察總長的職務。

立法院在審查檢察總長資格時，陳聰明最滋爭議的一點，即是他的交往太過複雜。陳聰明的特質，是他善於人際關係，長於人和；親民黨當時為「回報」他對宋楚瑜的友好而投票支持他，這是主要原因。但反過來看，這種喜好交際、葷素不忌的性格，恰恰也是司法擺脫不了人情羈絆的主因。也就是說，陳聰明因人和而得以出線，但對人情交際的不拘，卻又成為他維持司法獨立的障礙。從黃家夜宴事件即可看出，要寄望一個喜歡面面俱到的總長來維持檢察系統的超然，根本不可能有兩全的機會。

在正常的法治國家，任何司法官員私會涉案人或其關係人，都是違背職業倫理的行為，將遭嚴厲處分。在台灣，若要建立史上首位檢察總長的角色典範，對陳聰明的踰矩行為，絕對應該嚴加追究，不可輕忽。立法院除要求陳聰明就此提出詳盡報告，更應該組織專案小組調查其真偽；如果發現徇私、失當或說謊情事，則應要求陳聰明辭去總長職務。 一來，是要確保沒有任何司法正義在夜宴中被出賣；二來，這可促使陳聰明對其職務之神聖性提高警覺；三來，也是對社會及檢察界的疑慮作一澄清。

國家制度設計的美意，多麼容易毀於一人之手，從陳水扁總統的作為即可見殷鑑歷歷。檢察總長制才要上路，不能被一場說詞迷離的夜宴給破壞；這筆帳，陳聰明非交代清楚不可。