Print

Mail

wiki links

EDITORIAL: Ending the special fund quagmire

On Thursday the Supreme Court declared Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) president-elect Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) innocent in the special allowance fund case. Ma is thus clear of legal entanglements ahead of his inauguration on May 20. But the special allowance fund upheaval is not over yet. The next day, former premier Yu Shyi-kun appeared in court, so the storm rages on.

The Supreme Court determined that although expenditure of the special allowance was verifiable by receipts, it is not a real subsidy and can only be spent for purposes of public welfare. As Ma did not intentionally break the law, nor employ deception, the “not guilty” verdict was maintained.

While Ma’s secretary Yu Wen (余文) was found guilty of using receipts from other sources to falsely report expenditures, the Supreme Court did not further investigate whether Ma’s special allowance receipts covered public expenses. This is the most questionable part of the ruling.

The Supreme Court’s interpretation diverges from the Ministry of Justice’s interpretation as well as the district and high courts’ decision that the special allowance fund is a form of subsidy. This means that hundreds of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chiefs, past KMT leaders such as former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰), vice president-elect Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) and 95 others, are still trapped in the whirlpool of special allowance fund problems. Even Chen Tsung-ming (陳聰明), the state public prosecutor general, will not remain unscathed.

Now the Supreme Court has adopted the stance that the fund is not a subsidy, so prosecutors will not be able to deal with similar cases by interpreting the fund as such. Instead, they must deal with each case individually. Even if a great deal of legal resources is devoted to the task, there is no date of completion in sight for the long line of cases awaiting assessment.

Problematic and contradictory interpretations by administrative and legal bodies on this matter demonstrate that the system is greatly flawed, and all sides stand to suffer from it. Neither administrative explanations nor legal routes can end the quagmire.

With President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) about to step down, and first lady Wu Shu-jen (吳淑貞) also embroiled in the Presidential Office’s state affairs fund case, it would cause a significant political storm if Chen were to declare a general amnesty. If Ma, however, declared a general or special amnesty, it could imply that these officials are in fact guilty, and leave some, especially those in the DPP camp, unable to prove their innocence. The pan-green camp is already attacking the idea of a general amnesty.

Expenditure and documentation for the special allowance were always ambiguous. Many officials dealt with such ambiguities by following precedent, thus unintentionally breaking the law. Compared with more serious cases of corruption, the reproach they deserve should be light. If cases must be investigated and tried separately, a great deal of legal resources will be wasted. The best course is to amend the law and clearly redefine the nature, purpose and necessary documentation for the special allowance, as well as rule past cases as beyond legal reach.

During Su Tseng-chang’s (蘇貞昌) premiership, an amendment to resolve the issue was considered. However, it was not possible with the approaching elections. Now, the elections are over and Ma has been declared innocent, freeing him from a conflict of interest.

The call for a legal amendment comes from both the government and opposition parties. Ma should push for a legislative solution to this problem, which would also introduce an air of reconciliation between the government and the opposition.
This story has been viewed 877 times.