Fri, Oct 24, 2003 page8

• Editorial: Prying hard facts from James Soong

  • • 
    • 
    • 

  On Wednesday, former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) testified before an investigative hearing into the Chung Hsing Bills Finance scandal. Lee's testimony was reportedly highly damaging to People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜), who has been accused of embezzling funds from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) during his time as KMT

  secretary-general.

  Lee's appearance was notable for a number of reasons. It was the first time that a former president had been summoned to give testimony. Lee's wife, Tseng Wen-hui (曾文惠), set another precedent early last year when she testified in a libel suit against three New Party members, who claimed she had left the country with suitcases of cash after the 2000 presidential election.

  Taiwan's democracy has therefore matured to the point where even a former president and former first lady are held to be no different from any other citizen when seeking judicial redress and testifying when required. Some have suggested that it is a personal insult to Lee to summon him in such a manner. This view is thoroughly outdated. Even former US president Bill Clinton had to testify before a grand jury on his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. So, former presidents and serving presidents -- to the extent that presidential duties are not obstructed -- have obligations before the courts as other citizens do.

  On the other hand, the responses of the KMT and PFP to Lee's summons have been far from satisfactory. Regardless of what the judiciary and the prosecutors' office will do or have done in relation to this case, the Chung Hsing Bills Finance scandal continues to leave a very big question mark hanging over Soong's character. Were Soong not to run in next year's presidential election, it would suffice to leave the matter in the hands of the judiciary. However, since Soong is still in the race, he and his party ought to realize that the real judge and jury for this case are the voters. Soong must offer the public a satisfactory explanation of his conduct. He would do well not to evade the issue, in the hope that voters will, on the assumption that all politicians are corrupt across the board, let bygones be bygones.

  As argued by Chuang Po-lin (莊柏林), a former lawyer for the KMT, the previous decision of the prosecutors' office to not even file charges against Soong was questionable for many reasons, the most obvious being that Lee Teng-hui, a key figure in the case, had not been questioned.

  It is absurd to hear the pan-blue camp wailing "political oppression" over the decision of the prosecutors' office to open a new investigation into the matter. The KMT is of course put in a most awkward position, since it is supposedly the real victim here. Yet it had been quick to come to Soong's defense. The same level of enthsusiasm could not be detected in KMT corridors when Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was accused of wrong-doing following the merger of TaipeiBank and Fubon Financial Holding Co. In fact, Ma was pretty much left on his own to defend himself.

  If the KMT had been cunning, then the least it could have done was remain quiet this time around, and not reinforce the impression that political interests top their agenda over matters of propriety. Such impressions matter to a significant number of middle-of-the-road voters.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Taipei to join Japan, US response to rare earth ban

  • 2

    Torrential rain expected this week, the CWA says

  • 3

    Flight attendants’ union to protest EVA marathon

  • 4

    Urban mining could evade China’s grip

  • 5

    China’s visa program just for show: MAC