DPP follows KMT's path with bonus quaqmire

`If the DPP wants to reform, it should reform on the basis of legal procedures.'

In the past, under the party-state system of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), if the head of the administration wanted to keep his job, he couldn't do it too well, for fear that others would covet his post, or do it too badly, for fear of being ousted. It is hard to believe that this "immutable principle" of party-state rule can still be found under the "democratic" and "progressive" rule of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). But the case of China Steel Corp chairman Lin Wen-yuan (ªL¤å²W) is a perfect example of this.

Was it illegal for Lin to accept a substantial bonus? It was not. Even the New Tide faction of the DPP that has led the accusations against Lin have had to agree that it is not a question of legality, but a matter of political appropriateness.

This is not the same as President Chen Shui-bian (³¯¤ô«ó) and Vice President Annette Lu (§f¨q½¬) accepting only half pay when they took up their posts in 2000. That was a political decision, and accepting the full remuneration package would have been perfectly legal.

The DPP must hold firm to the idea of procedural justice, for this is the foundation on which a nation's rule of law is built. But under the current administration, in which "morality" is indiscriminately brought out as a weapon against opponents, what remains of the rule of law? Without the rule of law, human rights go out the window.

The example of Chen and Lu accepting half pay is not valid in accusing Lin. You could say that billionaire New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, in accepting only a token salary of US$1, has gone one better than Chen and Lu.

But accepting or not accepting a salary is not the point. Chen and Bloomberg voluntarily renounced remuneration, but this certainly does not give them the right to deny others the right to accept authority and remuneration to which they are legally entitled. If the DPP wants to reform, it should reform on the basis of legal procedures.

At the press conference where Lin announced his resignation from the chairmanship and other positions, he also said he would donate the full after-tax value of the stock bonus to charity. In doing so, he maintained his dignity under a most unreasonable attack.

By donating the stock bonus, Lin also underlined the fact that the bonus was his by right, and that there was no reason that it should be confiscated by the government. In effect, he established his right to dispose of the money as he saw fit.

It is worth pointing out that Lin is not a DPP member but a professional manager brought in to deal with a partially state-run enterprise. In the highly competitive international corporate world, a bonus of NT$40 million (US$1.19 million) is not considered outrageous for corporations of China Steel's size, and his resignation was simply the result of character assassination.

After this incident, will top managers be willing to serve the DPP? Will this not force the nation back onto the KMT path?

That Lin has fallen victim to a internal party struggle is a good indicator that the DPP has yet to transform itself from an opposition party into a ruling one.

Chin Heng-wei is editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly.

Translated by Ian Bartholomew