Fri, Jan 07, 2000 - Page 12 News List


Don't prejudge Soong

Will electoral friction spark the destruction of Taiwanese politics? After reading an article entitled "Can Hsieh Chi-ta clear James Soong" by Yu Ying-fu (??^?? (Jan. 3, Page 8) I would like to put forward a few comments on Yu's one-sided theories on the James Soong (宋楚瑜) issue.

But let me introduce myself first. I am a 16 year old high-school student from overseas, observing the political tension in Taiwan prior to the March presidential election as part of a research assignment.

To start with, Yu's comment, "Soong apparently hopes Hsieh's image would help vindicate him. Can this objective really be accomplished? I think not" seems a bit far fetched, when there are still 73 days until the election (as of Jan. 4), which is plenty of time for a suitable recovery.

Besides, how can Yu say "I think not," when nothing yet is set in stone?

Does this imply that Soong's opponents have enough dirt on him to totally destroy his chances? Does it mean Yu is in alliance with these people? If so, that would make his article biased, so why was he accusing Hsieh Chi-ta (謝啟?j) of being friendly with the Soong camp (while no evidence suggests this)?

What does the word hypocrisy mean? I think it's time someone found out. Further on, Yu stated, "The most credible investigator would be someone from the enemy camp, such as someone from the KMT."

This raises several questions. For a start, how could someone from the KMT be a credible investigator, if it was the KMT that brought the Soong issue to the limelight in the first place?

If their primary intention was to undermine Soong, how could they investigate justly?

Second, if a KMT member were to investigate and the result was to alleviate suspicion of Soong, thereby giving the KMT a bad name for making false accusations, would this investigator place loyalty to the party over morality when reporting on the findings?

Finally, should Soong be proven innocent, who will take responsibility for the KMT's false accusations and denials?

In no way am I suggesting that Soong is innocent, but I ask the related persons to think through the consequences should Soong be proven to be so.

Yu also questioned "Why did they ask a third party to investigate, instead of making public the information themselves?"

When the first NT$140 million came to the attention of the media, Soong explained that the sum was put under his control by President Lee Teng-hui (李登輝).

However, President Lee not only denied all knowledge of the sum, but said Soong was a lying thief and in Lee's own words, what Soong was saying was "a load of garbage." Because of this and other difficulties facing Soong as he tried to explain, he has seen the need to appoint Hsieh to investigate for him.

I'm sure that Yu, as a professor of law at three universities, would understand that the best way to win a court case would not be to employ your opposition to defend you.

It is ludicrous to suggest that Soong employ an investigator from the KMT -- if he believes he is innocent, why employ someone who doesn't even believe him, let alone someone who opposes him?

On another note, as no sufficient evidence has been collected yet to show that Soong is indeed guilty, perhaps we should refer to this case as an issue, rather than a scandal, especially in a political essay written by a famous scholar.

Comments will be moderated. Keep comments relevant to the article. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned. Final decision will be at the discretion of the Taipei Times.

TOP top