Liberty Times: The opposition argues that you should apologize publicly for Wang Wen-cheng's (王文正) involvement as a middleman in the speakership vote-buying case because it was you who chose him. Yet you haven't made a formal apology so far. Why?
Frank Hsieh (
On Dec. 20, I telephoned all the elected city councilors and urged them not to support Chu An-hsiung (朱安雄) for the speakership. As I heard that Wang was gathering support for Chu, I gave him a call too. Wang told me that Chu would be elected and that that was the only way to get the city council under control. But I didn't agree with him.
In our conversation on the phone, he did not tell me anything about handling any bribes. Why would he? His father's funeral was held on Dec. 22, so I asked him if he had accompanied Chu on his visit to see city councilors to gain their support. Wang replied that "I am now wearing a beard [a Chinese custom when a relative dies] and mourning for my father, so who would let me into their homes?" So I told him that he could use this as an excuse and not get involved in the speaker's election.
If Chu had lost the speaker's election, my situation wouldn't be worse. It would have been better for me if Tsai Ching-yuan (蔡慶源) or any other DPP city councilor was elected.
Chu has a controversial background, so I thought it would start an outcry if Chu were elected. So I didn't see eye to eye with Wang on this point. But Wang knows Chu well, so for Chu to be elected as speaker would be more convenient for Wang as Chu would be a useful liaison between the city government and city council.
Some say that I should make a public apology, but this actually means Wang is already under trial. All the revelations about Wang's involvement in the vote-buying charges come from the media. Wang himself has not admitted anything, nor has the prosecutor's office given me any legal documents. Should I just follow the media reports, put Wang on trial and send down a guilty verdict?
If Wang is guilty simply because of some media reports, then why would society still need the judicial system? The media needs to serve the public's right to know, so it needs to report on the judicial procedures. It would be dangerous if the media wants to play judge.
It's also clear to me that my image would be tarnished if I make a public apology at this moment. But of course, if the prosecutors formally indict Wang, or I ask him face to face and have his involvement confirmed, I would apologize. But not now.
I also had a candid talk with Wang regarding the reports that he had delivered the bribes in his office. His reply was that Chu and his wife did come to his office and were talking to other people. But Wang makes friends with people easily and many people come to his office every day. Wang asked me how the money could be delivered when there were all those people around? But of course, I would need to apologize if the money turns out to have been delivered in the office.
Some also say that, as mayor, I would definitely have known about Wang's involvement in the case and therefore should take the political responsibility. But sometimes a father doesn't know things about his own son, much less a mayor about his subordinate. If such an argument can be made, does that mean a man's wife should also be jailed simply because her husband commits a crime? Don't people say that one's bedfellow knows the other best?
RSS