Chen Chih-Chung and Huang Jui-Ching’s Plea Bargain

Chen Chih-Chung and Huang Jui-Ching’s Plea Bargain
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 23, 2009

Chen Chih-chung and Huang Jui-ching have confessed. As part of a plea bargain, they are willing to reveal the whereabouts of more money, jewelry, and property. They may or may not have been sincere in their expressions of remorse. But legally speaking, their confessions will make it difficult for Chen Shui-bian and Wu Shu-chen to continue maintaining their innocence.

Over the course of the day Chen Chih-chung and Huang Jui-ching pleaded guilty. As soon as they asked for a plea bargain, the presiding judge asked the two whether they had discussed their decision with counsel. Did they understand the meaning and legal ramifications of pleading guilty? The two affirmed that they did. Only then did prosecutors ask the court to consider a plea bargain. They did not set a date for the next session, but revised the wording to read “pending.” This much can be confirmed. Chen Chih-chung and Huang Jui-ching have expressed a desire to enter into a plea bargain, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Legally this means the two are no longer disputing the prosecution’s claim that they committed crimes.

Prosecutors indicted Chen Chih-chung and his wife for the crime of money-laundering, on the basis of the Money Laundering Control Act. The act states that it is a felony to “cover up, conceal, receive, handle, ship, harbor, fence, or hold the proceeds from felonies for oneself or for others.” The Money Laundering Control Act specifies a minimum of five years imprisonment for the crime of corruption. To charge someone with money laundering, the money laundered must be criminal proceeds. To confess to money laundering means to confess that one knew the money laundered was the result of criminal activity. The two are inseparable. A suspect who says “I confess I laundered money, but didn’t know the sums of money I laundered were criminal proceeds,” has not in fact confessed. And if one has not confessed, one cannot enter into a plea bargain. Some say Chen Chih-chung and his wife should split the difference wtih prosecutors, that they should claim “We didn’t know the sums of money we laundered were criminal proceeds.” This is both self-contradictory and inconsistent with the law.

As mentioned earlier, the plea bargaining process is predicated upon not challenging the indictment. The problem is prosecutors are also investigating other incidents of Chen family corruption. Chen Chih-chung has revealed money trails for cases not listed in the indictment against him. Suppose the two reach a plea bargain with prosecutors and settle on a sentence, only to have more cases of money-laundering surface? How will the matter be handled? It will be handled according to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law. Assuming the case has yet to reach the sentencing stage, if the court finds discrepancies between the plea bargain and the facts of the case, the plea bargain shall be considered null and void. The case will be retried, and the sentence reevaluated.

Therefore, the prosecution need not rush to reach an agreement with the defendants. Instead, it should pick up the pace of its investigation. Chen Chih-chung and his wife should think clearly, They had better not cough up some of their loot while concealing the rest of it, thinking they can enjoy their ill-gotten gains after serving only a light sentence. Harboring such notions can only undermine their goal of seeking light sentences by means of plea bargaining.

Prosecutors indicted Chen Chih-chung and his wife for violating the Money Laundering Control Act. This means the two knew they were covering up, concealing, receiving, handling, and holding the proceeds from criminal activities. That being the case, whom did the two think the illegal proceeds belonged to? In this case of course it was Ah-Bian and Ah-Cheng, their co-defendants. Therefore when Chen Chih-chung and Huang Jui-ching pleaded guilty, that meant the Court was aware of Ah-Bian and Ah-Cheng’s crimes. Under the circumstances, it is going to be even harder for Ah-Bian and Ah-Cheng to deny that they committed crimes. Even his own daughter-in-law has confessed to having and holding vast sums of criminal proceeds, to participating in money-laundering activities, and even to personally traveling overseas to direct such activities. Ah-Bian and Ah-Cheng will have a hard time convincing any judge the money was merely “campaign contributions,” and a hard time evading prosecution.

Chen Chih-chung and Huang Jui-ching’s plea bargain has put Chen Shui-bian and Wu Shu-chen in a difficult position. Ah-Bian and Ah-Cheng are charged with felonies. According to the law, suspects charged with felonies cannot request a plea bargain. The most they can do is throw themselves on the mercy of the court and hope for lighter sentences. But Ah-Bian and Ah-Cheng committed too many crimes, and the charges against them are too serious. No matter how lightly they are punished, prison terms are unavoidable. If they stubbornly maintain their innocence, Chen Chih-chung and Huang Jui-ching’s confessions have already shattered the family’s united front, making it difficult to explain away the contradictions in their stories. Public perception will be even more negative. The consequences will be even more serious.

The Chen family corruption case has shown the public that as long as prosecutors investigate in earnest, and acquire a clear picture of the case, no matter how devious the criminals might be, they will eventually succumb to the evidence. Therefore, the cornerstone of justice is the prosecutor. We look forward to prosecutors on Taiwan undergoing a metamorphosis in the wake of the Chen family corruption case.

致靚認罪協商，扁珍無所遁形
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.01.23 02:32 am

陳致中、黃睿靚當庭承認犯罪，並願供出更多金錢和珠寶財物的下落，以交換認罪協商。不論他們的悔意虛實如何，如此一來，在法律程序上，陳水扁和吳淑珍恐怕都很難再聲稱「無罪」。

觀察當天過程，陳致中、黃睿靚表示認罪、請求協商之後，審判長立即詢問兩人：是否與律師討論過？是否了解認罪的意義及法律效果？兩人均作出肯定的表示，確認知道認罪的作用。然後，檢方才請求法院庭外協商，暫不定下次期日而改「候核辦」。由此則可確定，陳致中、黃睿靚已依刑事訴訟法的規定表明「認罪協商」；這在法律上的意義，就是兩人對檢方起訴的「犯罪事實」不再爭執。

檢方是依洗錢防制法之罪起訴陳致中夫婦。洗錢犯罪，指的是「掩飾、隱匿、收受、搬運、寄藏、故買或牙保自己或他人，因重大犯罪所得財物或財產上利益」；而所謂「重大犯罪」，洗錢防制法也涵蓋了本刑五年以上的貪汙犯罪。亦即，洗錢犯罪須以所「洗」的金錢是「特定犯罪所得」為前提，承認了洗錢犯罪，也就承認了知悉所「洗」金錢為特定犯罪所得；而不能分割因果，說「只承認洗錢，不承認所洗金錢乃特定犯罪所得」。如果承認洗錢卻不承認所洗金錢是特定犯罪所得，就不是認罪，自亦不能協商。有些人指陳致中夫婦尚可與檢方論斤計兩，爭論「不知係犯罪所得」云云；其實，這是與法不合的。

如前所說，認罪協商是以不爭執檢方起訴事實為準。問題是，目前檢方還在調查扁家其他弊案的不法所得，且陳致中這次也供出了起訴內容之外的錢財流向；如果兩人與檢方認罪協商、談定刑度後，又發現更多洗錢犯罪事實，該如何處理？這時，若全案尚未審結宣判，依刑訴法規定，法院在發現「協商合意事實」與「審理認定事實」（包括檢方追查的新發現而追加起訴者）並不相同時，即不得依協商判決，而須重新審酌刑度。

因此，檢方其實不需太快和他們進行協商，而應加快調查腳步。至於陳致中夫婦也應再想清楚，不能存有任何「認一部分、藏一部分」的念頭，以為獲得輕判後，日後仍可享用。如果心存僥倖，反而將貽誤認罪協商以求從輕處理的目的。

進一步說，檢方起訴陳致中夫婦觸犯洗錢防制法，即包含了兩人知悉所掩飾、隱匿、收受、搬運、寄藏的財物是來自犯罪所得。既然如此，那麼兩人所認的是誰的犯罪所得？在本案中，當然就是同案被告扁珍二人。因此，陳致中、黃睿靚認罪，等於向法院明示知悉扁珍犯罪所得的事實。如此一來，扁珍兩人想要否認犯罪，難度就更高了。因為，連自己的子媳都承認了知悉他們有巨額犯罪所得，並參與他們洗錢甚或親自到國外操盤；則扁珍所辯錢財係「政治獻金」云云，就更難說服法官，亦更難逃有罪判決。

陳水扁和吳淑珍目前已因致、靚的認罪協商而陷於困境。倘若扁珍要認罪，因二人涉犯罪名都是重罪，依法根本不能協商，最多只能從犯後態度入手，懇求法院量刑從輕。但因扁珍罪行太多、罪名太重，再怎麼輕判，牢獄之災都難以避免。反之，若繼續以「無罪答辯」頑抗下去，則因致靚已經認罪，家庭共同戰線破裂，很難合理解釋，社會觀感更糟，後果也必定更嚴重。

扁家弊案一路發展至今，國人已可看到：只要檢方認真查案，將犯罪事證掌握得一清二楚，則再狡猾頑劣的罪犯，亦終須在罪證之前低頭。因此，司法正義的基石在檢察官；扁案之後，希望台灣有脫胎換骨的檢察官隊伍！

Eight Months: The Difference between Ma Ying-jeou and Barack Obama

Eight Months: The Difference between Ma Ying-jeou and Barack Obama
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 22, 2009

Barack Obama has assumed the Presidency of the United States. But can his ultra-high popularity withstand the harsh test of reality? That remains to be seen. On Taiwan such doubts may even be amplified. People watched as Ma Ying-jeou win by a landslide, only to have his halo tarnished within a few short months. How can Obama avoid the same fate?

The Repubic of China and the United States of America are different. But Ma Ying-jeou and Barack Obama’s backgrounds have a number of similarities. One. Both were minority candidates elected by all the people. Their successful candidacies demonstrate the meaning of ethnic harmony. So-called “mainlanders” in the Taiwan region, and African Americans in the US comprise roughly the same percentage of the total population, 13%. Two. Both Ma and Obama were preceded by men notorious for their recklessness, Chen Shui-bian and George W. Bush. These men ruled for eight years and two consecutive terms. Ma and Obama overthrew both their predecessors and their parties. Three. Both are Juris Doctors from Harvard University. Obama is 11 years younger, and less experienced politically.

Apart from these similarities, the biggest difference between the two is the eight month gap between their electoral victories. This difference may determine their respective destinies, Ma Ying-jeou was elected to rid the nation of the DPP’s economic isolationism and separatist demagoguery. During his inaugural speech he said, “People must rise up, only then can Taiwan be reborn.” The theme of Taiwan’s rebirth brimmed with dreamy optimism. Many people assumed a new era of peace and prosperity had arrived. Who knew it would all come tumbling down amidst the global economic crisis? None of the world’s nations has been spared. Ma Ying-jeou’s “633″ promises evaporated in an instant. Frustrated in their expectations, the people lost confidence and patience in the Ma administration.

By contrast, the global economy was already in a recession during the final phase of Obama’s campaign. The American people are not going to blame the depression on him. Furthermore, Wall Street was the primary culprit responsible for the current wave of financial turmoil. This deepened public antipathy toward Bush administration incompetence and malfeasance. It made them to look to the new vision for America symbolized by Obama. Eight months was enough to allow the American people to recognize the Bush administration’s responsibility for economic crimes, and to realize that Obama was merely attempting to save the economy. On this point, Ma Ying-jeou was clearly not as lucky as Obama. Because eight months after his inauguration, he has become the target of intense public dissatisfaction.

Public opinion has always been hard to fathom. This should be clear from the reversal in public attitude toward Ma Ying-jeou and Lee Myung-bak. Besides changes in the larger context, this has to do first with the individual leaders’ ability and personality, and secondly with the nation’s political structure and the electorate’s political maturity.

Take Ma Ying-jeou for example. He won by a 58% landslide. This reflected the public on Taiwan’s revulsion for ethnic demagoguery. They chose to join hands across this divide. But agitation by demagogues over the past few months has undermined this positive development. Blue vs. Green confrontation has resurfaced. Several Ma Ying-jeou nominated officials with Green political backgrounds have been implicated in scandals. Taipei and Beijing have sought to cooperate in investigating the Chen family corruption scandals. The Green Camp has attempted to capitalize on these, to create an atmosphere of confrontation. The superficiality and myopia of political demagogues are the biggest psychological obstacle to a society’s efforts to transcend ethnic bigotry.

Actually, compared to America’s long history of black vs. white race issues, Taiwan’s Blue vs. Green conflict over the last decade is an artificially invented social division that has unfortunately become real over time. That is the saddest fact of all. A democratic nation such as the United States took 200 years to finally resolve stubborn issues of race. This shows how difficult it is to heal social fissures. Society on Taiwan was originally harmonious. Yet it has moved in exactly the opposite direction. Political demagogues have invoked “love of Taiwan,” intentionally widening social differences and intensifying communal strife for their own selfish political interests. How many people can tolerate such cynical calculation?

Obama has assumed office wearing a halo. Can he summon up the wisdom the world expects of him? That will be the test of his administration. Amidst the Great Depression he has brought the American people a precious gift. He has inspired everyone to follow America’s example. As we watch the inauguraton in Washington from faraway Taipei, we too may be inspired, alerted, and encouraged. Perhaps we can all complain a little less, and sympathize and understand a little more. In which case, we may feel a little less anxious and a little more confident about how to extricate ourselves from our current predicament.

八個月之差的馬英九與歐巴馬
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.01.22 03:17 am

歐巴馬就任美國總統，但他的超高人氣究竟禁得起多少現實的嚴酷考驗，舉世皆拭目以待。對台灣而言，這樣的心情也許更為強烈，因為人們眼看馬英九以高票當選到他魅力墜落，也不過是短短幾個月的時間；那麼，歐巴馬的一身璀璨光彩，又如何可能免於剝落呢？

台灣和美國國情雖截然不同，但馬英九和歐巴馬當選的背景卻有不少相似之處，可拿來互為對照。第一，兩人均以少數族裔當選全民總統，展現了族群融合的意義；台灣外省族群及美國非裔人口的比率極為接近，均在一成三上下。第二，兩人都在前任總統執政八年後締造了政黨輪替；兩人的前任，陳水扁和布希任內都因蠻幹而聲名狼藉。第三，兩人皆為出身哈佛大學的法學博士；唯歐巴馬年輕十一歲，從政資歷也淺得多。

但除了這些相似點，兩人就任時間相差八個月，卻可能是他們命運最大的分水嶺。馬英九當選時，扛著破除扁政府經濟鎖國及撕裂族群的期待，他的就職演說「人民奮起，台灣新生」的主調充滿樂觀夢想，許多人以為一個太平盛世即將翩然到來。不料，全球經濟危機卻轟然爆發，舉世各國無一倖免，馬英九的「六三三」承諾在瞬間化為泡影；人民也在由期盼而至挫折的心情下，對馬政府逐漸失去信心和耐心。

反觀歐巴馬，在他競選的最後階段，世界經濟已經進入嚴冬，美國人民不會把蕭條的責任歸咎於他。不僅如此，美國華爾街作為引爆這波金融風暴的禍首，加深了人們對於布希政府無能失德的厭憎，反而對歐巴馬所象徵的新美國願景愈寄予期待。亦即，八個月的時局落差，讓美國人民足以認知經濟衰頹的責任罪在布希政府，歐巴馬未來要負的只是挽救經濟的責任。這點，馬英九顯然沒有歐巴馬幸運，因為早八個月就職的他須承受沉重的民怨。

民意的走向原就難以捉摸，從人民對馬英九及李明博的愛憎變化，即可窺知。除了大環境的變數，這一則與領袖的個人能力和人格特質有關，二則也與各國政治結構及人民民主素質有關。

以馬英九為例，他以五成八的高得票率當選，反映台灣人民已厭倦族群政治，決定攜手跨越這道鴻溝。然而，在政治人物的操弄下，這幾個月來，原已漸形淡化的藍綠對峙竟又有升高趨勢。包括馬英九幾次提名綠色背景人物出任公職失利，乃至兩岸尋求和解及扁家弊案的偵辦過程中，綠營一直以街頭動員製造社會對峙氣氛。可以說，政治人物的淺薄和短視，是使社會無法走出仇恨的最大心障。

事實上，比起美國源遠流長的黑白種族問題，台灣的藍綠情結不過是近十幾年才被人為地製造出來的東西；它是虛假的族群議題，卻炮製出真實的社會分歧，這才是最可悲之處。試想，以美國這樣的民主國家，都足足走了兩百多年，才解開頑強的黑白種族情結，可見社會裂隙的彌合如何不易。而台灣原本是融洽的社會，卻有人反其道而行，以「愛台灣」之名來擴大社會的歧見和仇恨，只為了攫取自己的政治利益；對這樣險惡的居心，多數國人能任其宰割嗎？

頂著光環上任的歐巴馬，能不能拿出與外界期待相應的作為和智慧，這是他的大考驗。在當前的大蕭條下，他至少帶給美國人民一項珍貴的禮物：鼓舞大家朝美好的路上前進。從台灣遙觀華府這場熱力四射的就職典禮，也許可以得到一些啟發、一些警惕和鼓舞；也許大家能減少一些怨艾，增加一些同情和理解。那麼，對於台灣要如何走出當前的困境，也就能少一點焦慮，多一點力量。

America Officially Enters the Obama Era

America Officially Enters the Obama Era
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 21, 2009

On January 21, 2009, at 1:00am Taipei time, Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. He delivered a 17 minute inaugural speech. Ever since he won the election, his every move has been the focus of domestic and worldwide attention. Obama, who has always been good at speechmaking, outlined his vision for the future. How will Obama faces the challenges ahead of him will be the real test, and will determine whether he becomes a great President.

Obama’s election victory not only shocked the United States. It also sent shockwaves around the world. Past presidential elections meant foreign policy change at most. But there has never been someone with an effect on people like Obama.

First of all, Obama’s election victory is the concrete realization of racial equality. According to polls taken before Obama was elected, only 35% of African Americans considered Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream fulfilled. One year later however, Barack Obama has been elected. Now twice as many African Americans, 70%, believe King’s dream has been fulfilled. In terms of socio-economic structure, the racial divide still exists. But in terms of political symbolism, the goal of the black civil rights movement, Martin Luther King’s dream, has been achieved. On this point alone, Obama will go down in history.

Obama’s election victory was of epoch-making significance not only for the United States, but for the whole world. America’s image as a hegemon has been transformed. A member of a disadvantaged racial minority has become head of state through the democratic process. For the world’s ethnic minorities, the American hegemon was merely the strong bullying the weak. Obama’s election is a source of inspiration.

Although America has ushered in the Obama administration, and ushered out the Bush administration, the problems remain, and still need healing. Among them, one of the most serious is the War on Terror.

Withdrawal from Iraq is a top priority. But in order to avoid the mistakes of Vietnam, Obama must be careful about the transfer of power. He must support the government of Iraq via the democratic process. Troop increases may be effective In Afghanistan, but not in Iraq. Any incident during this period, such as large-scale suicide bombing attacks against U.S. troops, would plunge Iraq and Afghanistan into genocidal warfare. Any U.S. withdrawal would be delayed, and become a hot potato for Barack Obama.

Secondly, America is America. In America, unlike many developing countries, political retaliation is unfashionable. Many human rights groups are calling for the prosecution of senior Bush administration officials. In particular they want to discover whether it authorized the abuse of prisoners and committed human rights violations. But Obama has pledged to “look forward.” He has received bipartisan support and does not plan on settling old scores.

But leaders who knowingly violate the law, who abuse power, are a no-no in democratic nations. Human rights groups are demanding an accounting. A comprehensive investigation is essential. Some European nations are even more determined. They have declared that if former high officials of the Bush administration go abroad, they will take them into custody. This may create problems for Obama’s domestic and foreign policy.

The real test for Obama will be his first 100 days in office. A new president’s first 100 days usually determines his historical legacy. This has to do with public expectations and with how aggressively the new president pursues reform. The public has high expectations for new presidents. Congress is usually afraid to oppose his initiatives. What a new president wants, he usually gets. But if the public’s expectations are disappointed, either because they were too high or too unrealistic, it will soon become disillusioned. Other elected representatives will seize the opportunity to resist, and the result will be gridlock.

The most urgent issue is the financial crisis. Obama’s popularity ratings are very high at the moment. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives are under the control of the Democratic Party. Passing major bills should be no problem. But there have been exceptions. Clinton encountered difficulty passing the National Health Insurance Act, despite a House of Representatives dominated by his own party. Bush encountered difficulty passing his immigration bill, even though his party held a majority in the House of Representatives. Obama has asked Vice-President Joe Biden, with several decades of experience in the Senate, to craft a First 100 Days plan for Congress.

The New York Times recently invited five authors of presidential biographies to write about the challenges five presidents faced during their first 100 days in office. Among these was Franklin D. Roosevelt, who faced the economic crisis known as the Great Depression. He was sworn in immediately after an emergency session of both houses of Congress. Six hours later he pushed through the Emergency Banking Act. We predict congress will follow the precedent established by Franklin Roosevelt, and approve any economic revitalization programs or astronomical deficit spending Obama proposes.

But this does not really solve problems. If anything, it is congress shirking its responsibility. If Obama is smart, he will realize policies seldom yield immediate results. Time and again he has attempted to reduce people’s expectations. But eventually the public’s patience will wear thin. Economic recovery will take time. Once this gap between expectations and realities appears, Obama will face his first real crisis of governance.

The next four years will be the Obama Era. But the Obama Era will also be Obama’s severest test.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2009.01.21
美國正式邁入歐巴馬年代
中時社論

就在台北時間廿一日凌晨一時，歐巴馬剛剛宣誓就任美國第四十四任總統，並發表了十七分鐘的演說。從他當選開始，一舉一動就已經受到美國與全世界的矚目。而向來擅長演說的他也以感動人心的詞藻，描繪出他對未來的願景。但歐巴馬究竟將如何面對橫在他眼前的挑戰與難題，才是真正試煉他是否能成為偉大總統的關鍵。

歐巴馬當選的衝擊，不僅震撼美國，同時也在全世界引發巨浪，過去歷次美國總統選舉充其量僅是外交政策的變化，從來沒有一次能像歐巴馬般這麼深入人心。

首先，這是種族平等的具體實現，根據民意調查，在歐巴馬當選前，認為金恩博士的願景已經實現的美籍非裔人僅有三十五％，但是一年後，歐巴馬當選，有兩倍高達七成的非裔人認為願景已經達到。雖然在社經結構上，種族鴻溝依然存在，但政治象徵上，黑人民權運動的目的「我有一個夢」的願景已經達到，單憑這點，歐巴馬已可永留青史。

歐巴馬當選不僅在美國有劃時代意義，對於全世界也有激勵作用，美國的霸權形象更做了翻轉，原本是少數劣勢種族，可以藉由民主程序，成為國家元首，這對全球的少數民族，或是認為美國霸權只是以強凌弱的人，都是強烈的啟發。

對美國而言，雖然迎來歐巴馬新政府，告別布希舊政權，但所遺留下的問題，仍需療傷止痛，其中又以反恐戰爭的傷痕最深。

伊拉克撤軍，是當務之急，但是要避免越南覆轍，歐巴馬必須謹慎轉移治安責任，在民主程序下扶持伊拉克政府；而在另一個阿富汗戰場，增兵也許是有效方式，但不能隨便假設伊拉克模式可以套用。這期間若出現任何差錯，像對美軍大規模自殺炸彈攻擊、伊阿兩國陷於種族屠殺，都會讓美軍撤退的時間拉長，屆時燙手山芋就會轉成歐巴馬的問題。

其次，美國之所以是美國，不似其他的發展中國家，政治報復並不流行，許多人權團體主張要追訴布希政府高官的責任，尤其是調查是否曾授權虐待戰俘違反人權的罪行，但歐巴馬已表示要「向前看」，爭取兩黨一致的支持合作，不預備翻舊帳。

但領導人知法違法，濫用職權，是民主國家的大忌，人權團體堅持要把事情弄清楚，而展開全面調查是有必要的，部分歐洲國家更為激烈，宣稱要羈押出國訪問的布希前高官，這可能會對歐巴馬構成內政與外交問題。

但歐巴馬真正的考驗在任職後的一百天，新總統的頭一百天，通常決定總統的歷史定位，這與民眾期待有關，也與所推動的改革有關。總統剛執政，民眾有很高期待，議會不敢攖其鋒，要通過甚麼就通過甚麼，但如果讓期待落空或是有太高不切實際的期待，短時間後，民眾就會產生失望，民意代表們當然藉機抵制，結果自然改革寸步難行。

眼前當務之急莫過於經濟金融危機的迫切緊急，目前歐巴馬的聲望極高，國會參眾兩院又都是由民主黨所控制，本來通過重大法案應該是沒有問題的，但是過去曾經有過例外，柯林頓在自己黨占多數的眾議院，照樣通不過健保法案，小布希的移民法案也過不了自己同黨占多數的眾議院，歐巴馬已經委託在參議院待過幾十年的副總統拜登擬定一百天立法計畫，排定優先順序。

《紐約時報》日前邀請五位總統傳記作家，各自寫五位總統在第一百天所面臨的挑戰與難題，其中提到小羅斯福總統面臨大恐慌經濟危機，宣誓就任後立即召集國會兩院緊急集會，在六小時內通過了「緊急銀行法」。可以預期的是，對歐巴馬提出的任何經濟振興方案，任何天文數字的赤字預算，國會肯定會循小羅斯福先例立即通過。

但與其說這是解決問題，還不如說是國會卸責，聰明如歐巴馬者，當然知道政策難有立竿見影之效，所以一再在公開談話中企圖降低民眾的期待。但是民意的耐性終究會很快磨損，而經濟復甦則是需要時間，兩者一旦出現落差，就是歐巴馬真正統治危機的來源。

未來這四年，將是屬於歐巴馬的時代，但即將開展的這個時代，也將是對他考驗最嚴酷的年代。

Such Devotion, Such Betrayal

Such Devotion, Such Betrayal
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 20, 2009

While in detention, Chen Shui-bian wrote “Taiwan’s Crucifix.” He has chosen to publish it on the eve of the Trial of the Century. Not surprisingly, he has denied every one of the prosecution’s charges. It’s bad enough that he refuses to take responsibility for his wrongdoing. In his book he launches into an unsparing and heartless tirade against his former comrades. Half of the Green Princes of the DPP are referred to by name and subjected to harsh criticism. This means that as the Green Camp enters the post-Chen era, the illusion of harmony has been totally shattered.

Chen’s scandals have emitted a foul stench. But most leaders of the Democratic Progressive Party are biting their tongues. The overwhelming majority are unwilling to cast the first stone. When Chen was indicted, DPP leaders said they could not cut their ties with him, despite criticism they were turning a blind eye to right and wrong. Whether their decision was rooted in self-interest or camaraderie, the Democratic Progressive Party backed Chen to the bitter end. What did they receive in return? Chen struck first and cut his ties with them. In his book, “Taiwan’s Crucifix,” Ah-Bian blasts Frank Hsieh, Yu Shyi-kun, Tsai Ing-wen, and the DPP. He concludes, in short, that everyone is indebted to him.

Read what Ah-Bian wrote. Listen to his tone: “Nobody owes me, I owe everybody, I owe the Democratic Progressive Party, I owe Chairman Tsai, I didn’t do enough, I didn’t sacrifice enough!” Translation: “Everyone of you owes me! Tsai Ing-wen owes me. The entire DPP owes me! The DPP has failed to live up to the whole are to live up to my expectations! Whether Tsai Ing-wen accepts such claims, we don’t know. But everyone knows Chen Shui-bian left the Democratic Progressive Party in a mess that Tsai Ing-wen must clean up. When Tsai Ing-wen was running over the island raising funds for the cash-strapped Democratic Progressive Party, the public learned that every one of Chen Shui-bian’s overseas accounts contained hundreds of millions of dollars. One of these accounts even listed the Democratic Progressive Party as its dummy head. The loose change in any of these accounts would have immediately alleviated the financial pressure on the Democratic Progressive Party. But lo and behold, this money “belonged” to Chen Chih-chung! Consider the weight of the cross Tsai Ing-wen had to bear. Yet Ah-Bian maintains Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP owe him.

Ah-Bian also nursed grievances about Frank Hsieh’s defeat in the presidential election. He blasted Hsieh for distancing himself from the legislative elections, the ruling administration, and the president. He said for Hsieh to “repudiate the past eight years was tantamount to repudiating himself.” What Ah-Bian meant was that if Hsieh had embraced Chen Shui-bian, he might have won! Whether Frank Hsieh agrees with Chen’s assessment, we don’t know. But hit rewind and we will see the legislative elections being choreographed by Ah-Bian, in toto. Hsieh basically stood in the wings and played a supporting role. The main theme of that election campaign was Chen’s “Join the UN Plebiscite.” By the time that fiasco had drawn to a close, the Democratic Progressive Party held fewer than one-fourth of the seats in the legislature. Chen had thoroughly undermined Taipei/Washington relations. Hsieh didn’t need to distance himself from Ah-Bian. Ah-Bian had already dragged Hsieh down with him! Ah-Bian’s State Affairs Fund scandal erupted just as Hsieh began his presidential campaign. Chen Shui-bian may be reluctant to admit it, but political observers agree that Hsieh faced an uphill fight, and that Chen Shui-bian was the biggest albatross around Hsieh’s neck. Why wouldn’t Hsieh want to distance himself from Ah-Bian? He wanted to, but he couldn’t!

Chen Shui-bian’s intentions are clear. He has no intention of letting the leadership of the Democratic Progressive Party disown him. He is going to disown them first. He did not blast Annette Lu. He did not blast Su Tseng-chang. But he did blast Tsai Ing-wen, Frank Hsieh, and Yu Shyi-kun. He still hopes to influence the Democratic Progressive Party’s future. Ah-Bian’s strategy is transparent. He intends to use allegations of a miscarriage of justice to counter charges of corruption. He intends to use the Taiwan independence movement’s dream of building a nation to hijack Deep Green followers. He intends to use Chen Faction DPP members to hijack the Democratic Progressive Party. He has hundreds of ways to attract media attention. By such means he intends to manipulate the future of the Green Camp. In doing so, he finds himself drifting farther and farther from Frank Hsieh and Tsai Ing-wen. Even under detention, he refused to ease up on them. That is hardly a coincidence.

As Chen’s trial proceeds, his political tricks will multiply. From beginning to end, the DPP remained mum about Chen Shui-bian’s corruption. It was categorically unwilling to disown him. But Chen Shui-bian has now turned on the Democratic Progressive Party. He wants his pound of flesh. He has seized the initiative, demanding that Democratic Progressive Party leaders cut their ties with him. In short, someone who has already quit the party, who is unable to explain his involvement in multiple scandals, still intends to hijack the DPP. He still intends to stir up trouble within the Democratic Progressive Party. This is what the Democratic Progressive Party has come to. If it continues to side with Chen, based on past loyalty, the public will only be able to shake its head in disbelief.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2009.01.20
如此一往情深 換來的是什麼
中時社論

選在扁案世紀大審的前夕，陳水扁將他在看守所期間所撰寫的《台灣的十字架》搶先上市。不出意外，面對檢方就他所涉弊案的指控，他一概都否認，不認帳也就罷了，他在這本書中更不惜對他昔日的同志，進行了一次相當不留情面的撻伐，幾乎有半數以上的綠營天王都被他點名批判；這也意味，綠營在邁入後扁年代後所硬撐起來的表面和諧，至此算是完全戳破了。

要知道，迄今為止，民進黨內的多數領導精英，對扁所涉的種種令人不堪聞問的弊案，多半是選擇隱忍不發的，絕大多數都不願對扁「口出惡言」，扁被檢方起訴時，儘管外界已有「是非不分」的質疑，民進黨中央還是發聲明坦承與扁「無法切割」，不論這是基於利害考量，或是顧念同志情誼，民進黨終究是選擇對扁一路相挺。然而民進黨對扁的這種「一往情深」，最終換來的卻是扁的「主動切割」。在扁的《台灣的十字架》一書中，他批謝長廷、批游錫？、批蔡英文，更批民進黨，總而言之，他認為所有人都對不起他！

看看扁在書中所寫的這段話，語氣有多刻薄：「沒有人欠我，只有我欠大家，我欠民進黨，我欠蔡主席，我做得不夠，我犧牲的還不夠！」這種語言修辭假如翻成白話文，簡單地說就是「你們全都對不起我！」不僅蔡英文主席對不起陳水扁，整個民進黨都辜負了陳水扁！我們不知道這種指控蔡英文接不接受，至少所有人都心知肚明：陳水扁留給蔡英文的民進黨，究竟是怎樣的爛攤子！當蔡英文還在南北奔波替財務吃緊的民進黨募款之際，陳水扁在海外逐一曝光的帳戶卻個個都是以億計數，其中被掛名當人頭的還包括民進黨在內，這其中隨便拿任何一個戶頭總額的零頭，都可以立刻紓緩當下民進黨的財務壓力，但這些錢卻全是陳致中的！想想蔡英文扛的是多重的十字架？但扁卻認蔡英文與民進黨都對不起他！

對謝長廷的敗選，扁的怨言顯然更多！他批謝切割立委選舉、切割行政團隊、切割總統，指責謝長廷「否定過去八年，等於是否定自己」。扁說這些話的用意，顯然是認為如果當初謝選擇擁抱陳水扁，說不定還有機會勝選！我們不知道謝長廷是否同意這種說法，但如果倒帶到前年底的立委選舉現場，就知道那根本是場扁直接主導的選舉，謝根本一直被晾在邊緣充當配角，那場主打「入聯公投」的選舉，不僅最後讓民進黨的立委席次跌到僅占四分之一以下，還賠上了台美關係，謝其實用不著切割就已經被拖累了！而當總統大選起跑之際，也正是扁的國務機要費案次第爆發之時，陳水扁或許不願承認，但所有政情觀察家大致上都同意，謝的這場選戰會打得這麼辛苦，陳水扁正是他最大的包袱，他何曾不想切割？他根本切割不了！

陳水扁的算盤打得很清楚，他不等民進黨領導精英與他切割，搶先做切割的動作，他不批呂，不批蘇，卻選擇痛批蔡英文、謝長廷與游錫？，用意當然很明顯，他還要主導民進黨未來的命運。扁的戰略很清楚，用「司法不公」對抗所涉弊案的指控，用「建國夢想」裹脅深綠群眾，用扁系人馬裹脅民進黨，他甚至有一百種以上的方法吸引媒體注意，藉由這些手段，他尋求進一步操縱綠營未來的路線走向，在這個過程中與他漸行漸遠的，不就是謝長廷與蔡英文等人嗎？他被關在看守所中，都不願放過這兩人，豈是偶然的？

隨著扁案審判時程的推進，陳水扁未來的政治動作只會多不會少。一路以來民進黨中央對扁案的立場，都是選擇緘默以對，也都不願做任何切割，如今卻輪到陳水扁回頭來對民進黨算帳，甚至還主動對民進黨當下的領導層進行切割。講得再白一點，一個已經退黨的人，一個對所涉弊案很難澄清的涉案人，卻一直到現在都還在持續凌遲民進黨，還企圖持續綁架民進黨，甚至還想繼續在民進黨內興風作浪，民進黨走到這般田地，如果繼續選擇對扁一往情深，外界恐怕也只有嘆息的份！

Chen Shui-bian, How Do You Plead?

Chen Shui-bian, How Do You Plead?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 19, 2009

Today, the Taipei District Court will hear the Chen Shui-bian corruption case. First, it will hold a three day long preparatory session. This is the first time a former president has faced justice for corruption-related crimes. Needless to say, it is an event of major significance, and represents an evolutionary step in our constitutional order.

The judges have investigated the people involved. As usual, they will ask the accused Chen Shui-bian: How do you plead? Guilty or not guilty?

If Chen Shui-bian pleads guilty to the prosecutor, he may begin a process of plea bargaining. If he does not plead guilty, the trial will begin, and Chen Shui-bian must offer a defense.

The judge will ask the defendant, “How do you plead? Guilty, or not guilty?” Although it is a mere formality, for the Chen Shui-bian corruption case it of enormous significance. Because whether Chen Shui-bian pleads guilty or not bears on the issue of justice, particularly political justice. If Chen Shui-bian pleads not guilty, even a harsh sentence will not restore political justice.

Judging by Chen Shui-bian’s current attitude, he will not plead guilty. But judging by developments so far, he will have a hard time being found not guilty. That is why a few days ago his lawyers said he may wear a surgical mask marked with an “X” over his face as a silent protest, rather than put up a defense.

Chen Shui-bian’s main argument in his defense is that the money in his secret accounts were “campaign contributions,” and that their purpose was a “nation-building fund.” His first priority is to help Chen Chih-chung escape prosecution. His second priority is to help himself avoid responsibility. As a last resort he will transfer all blame onto Wu Shu-chen. The Chen family is counting on the fact that no one has the political courage to demand that Wu Shu-chen serve time in prison.

None of the funds in the Chen family’s four corruption scandals can be passed off as “campaign contributions.” In the State Affairs Fund scandal, the Chen family used phony receipts to dip into the state treasury. What does this have to do with “campaign contributions?” In the Longtan Land Purchase scandal, Ming-Jer Tsai and Leslie Koo confessed to paying the Chen family “commissions,” not campaign contributions. In the Nankang Exhibition Hall scandal, Minister of the Interior Yu Cheng-hsien leaked a list of the review board members. Was the payment for this inside information a “campaign contribution?” In the Chen family’s money-laundering case, numerous instances of dirty money flowing into the Chen family’s secret coffers have already been identified as “not campaign contributions.” Chen Shui-bian wants to cite “campaign contributions” as a means of pleading not guilty in all four cases. But is anyone going to believe him?

Now let’s look at the issue of responsibility. In the State Affairs Fund scandal, Ma Yung-cheng, Lin Teh-hsiung, and Chen Cheng-hui have already confessed they carried out orders handed down by President Chen Shui-bian. Otherwise, who would have dared to give the State Affairs Fund balance sheet to Wu Shu-chen to read? Who would have dared to move State Affairs Funds into the Yushan official residence? Chen Shui-bian wants us to believe his subordinates committed these crimes, and are now passing the buck over to him. How does he think the public will react when it hears such arguments in court? In the Longtan Land Purchase scandal Chen Shui-bian argues that the president was not authorized to decide whether to purchase the land. The powers and responsibilities belong to the Executive Yuan. Does that mean that the “commission” Wu Shu-chen pocketed ought to be turned over to Yu Shyi-kun? Does that mean Yu should be the one to go to prison? In the Nankang Exhibition Hall scandal, Chen Shui-bian suggests that the bidding on the exhibition hall was not part of the president’s authority, therefore Wu Shu-chen could not have charged a “commission” on that basis. Chen suggests that Yu Cheng-hsien did everything on his own initiative. As for the Chen family money-laundering case, Chen Shui-bian claims he learned about the matter from Ye Sheng-mao in December 2006. How can he possibly shift all blame onto Wu Shu-chen?

In sum, for Chen Shui-bian to offer a not guilty plea is already impossible. If Chen knows it is impossible but attempts to bluff his way through anyway, Chen Shui-bian and Chen Cheng-hui will be at each others’ throats throughout the trial. Chen will have to shift all responsibility onto Wu Shu-chen, the crippled mother of his children. Chen will have to shift all responsibility for the Longtan Land Purchase scandal onto Yu Shyi-kun. In the Nankang Exhibition Hall scandal, Wu Shu-chen has framed Yu Cheng-hsien, saying he was a Yes Man who twisted the meaning of her words. Wu Shu-chen and her own brother Wu Ching-mao have become mortal enemies. Former friends Wu Shu-chen and Tsai Ming-Jer have also turned on each other. Such ugly and pathetic scenes will play out in court. No wonder Chen Shui-bian is thinking about wearing a mask. Does he really think he has room to equivocate? Does he really want to preside over this ugly farce, in open court?

Chen Shui-bian has persisted in hiding behind the smokescreen of alleged “campaign contributions.” But when these four cases are argued in open court, Chen Shui-bian will have a hard time proving the kickbacks Wu Shu-chen extorted in the State Affairs Fund scandal were “campaign contributions.” He will have a hard time proving the kickbacks the Chen family received during the Longtan Site Preparation scandal and the Nankang Exhibition Hall scandal were “campaign contributions.” Given the facts of the case, does Chen Shui-bian really intend to enter a plea of not guilty?

Moreover, these four cases are merely appetizers. The entrees are yet to come. The Second Financial Reform scandal, the Diplomacy scandal and other main dishes will soon be served up. Are the funds involved in those scandals also “campaign contributions?” Are they also part of a “nation-building fund?” The more Chen Shui-bian pleads not guilty, the more he exposes his ugly greed.

Chen Shui-bian may as well take off his mask and plead guilty. Otherwise, the public will be treated to the ugly and pathetic spectacle of former masters and dogs tearing into each other in open court.

法官問：陳水扁你認罪嗎？
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.01.19 02:01 am

台北地方法院今起審理扁案，首先將連開三天的準備庭。這是首次發生卸任總統因任期內的貪汙罪行而面對司法審判，當然是民主憲政深具升級晉階意義的重大事件。

法官在作完人別查證後，照例將訊問被告陳水扁：你認不認罪？

如果陳水扁承認檢察官所控之罪，即可進行「認罪協商」之類的程序；若不認罪，即進入審判程序，陳水扁就須作無罪之抗辯。

法官問被告「認不認罪」，雖然只是例行的過場，但在扁案卻具重大意義。因為，陳水扁認罪與否，不僅有涉司法正義，尤其攸關政治公道。陳水扁若不認罪，即使最後被判重罪，卻畢竟不能還國人以政治面的公義與公道。

顯然，就陳水扁目前的態度來看，他必不認罪；但就案情的發展來看，他卻已經很難抗辯為無罪。因此，日前律師透露，陳水扁可能戴著畫╳的口罩出庭，抗議而不抗辯。

陳水扁抗辯的大架構是：錢的來源皆是「政治獻金」，錢的去路則是留為「建國基金」。至於行為責任部分，首先要為陳致中脫罪，再排除陳水扁的責任，萬不得已則把一切責任推給吳淑珍。扁家料定，反正你們不敢叫吳淑珍坐牢服刑吧？

但是，扁家四弊案，一字排開，卻沒有一案能夠解釋為「政治獻金」。國務費案，是用假發票從國庫詐取所得，豈是政治獻金？龍潭購地案，則蔡銘哲與辜成允皆已供認是「佣金」，亦非政治獻金；南港展館案，則又豈有政治獻金竟以內政部長余政憲洩漏評議委員名單的方式取得？至於洗錢案，已經查出多筆「非政治獻金」的贓款滾入「汙水庫」中。然則，陳水扁若欲以「政治獻金」抗辯四案無罪，誰其能信？

再談行為責任。國務費案，馬永成、林德訓及陳鎮慧皆已供認由陳水扁總統指使；倘非如此，誰敢將國務費收支表呈吳淑珍閱？又誰敢將大筆國務費現金搬入玉山官邸？陳水扁竟欲辯稱，這是「底下的人」要他擔罪，此話在法庭上眾目睽睽之下如何啟齒？龍潭購地案，陳水扁則辯稱，決定購地個案非總統之職務所轄，而係行政院的權責；這難道是說，由吳淑珍收「佣金」，卻讓游錫?去坐牢？南港展館案，陳水扁更儼然主張，由於展館開標非總統之職權，因而吳淑珍亦非因總統的權勢而收取「佣金」，彷彿一切皆因余政憲主動逢迎所致。至於洗錢案，已證實陳水扁「至少」在二○○六年十二月已從葉盛茂處得知，又豈能一切皆推給吳淑珍？

綜上所論，陳水扁若欲作無罪抗辯，委實已無可能。如果明知其不可為而勉強為之，則在庭訊過程中，勢將可見到陳水扁與陳鎮慧等舊屬互咬，陳致中將一切罪行推給殘障母親吳淑珍，陳水扁又把龍潭購地案的主導責任賴給游錫?，吳淑珍則就南港案誣陷余政憲曲意逢迎；更將可見到吳淑珍、吳景茂手足反目，及吳淑珍、蔡銘哲等膩友翻臉等種種醜惡又悲慘的場景。難怪陳水扁可能戴上口罩出庭，他難道還有置辯餘地？他難道想要在公開當庭辯論中親自領銜主演這一齣悲醜鬧劇？

案情發展至今，陳水扁一直在「政治獻金」上打煙幕戰；現在，四案在審判庭上公開辯論，陳水扁恐怕不易證明吳淑珍從國務費中詐取的是「政治獻金」，同樣亦不易證明扁家自龍潭案及南港案中所取得的「佣金」是「政治獻金」。就案論案，就法論法，陳水扁認不認罪？

何況，今日四案尚只是扁案大宴的開胃菜而已，未來二次金改、外交弊案等大菜即將上桌，難道那些也皆是「政治獻金」與「建國基金」？陳水扁愈作無罪抗辯，恐怕愈將醜態畢露。

陳水扁何不脫下口罩，誠實向法官認罪，否則，國人就可看到一齣骨肉主僕相互撕咬撲噬的悲醜大戲了！

A Poor Report Card for the Largest Party in the Legislature

A Poor Report Card for the Largest Party in the Legislature
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 17, 2009

The Seventh Legislative Yuan held a surprise plenary session. This surprise delayed the third reading of the Ma administration’s 2009 central government budget one full day. Compared to previous years, the Legislative Yuan went easy on the Liu Cabinet. It cut the budget only 1% more than discussed in consultations, a miniscule increase of 0.1%, only 2 billion NT. Judging by the numbers, one day more and 2 billion less is no big deal. But the KMT has over 80 seats in the Legislative Yuan, a supermajority. It should be in complete control. For the Office of the President and the Executive Yuan, this is a very big deal indeed.

Since the Ma administration took office, coordination between the presidential office, the legislature, and the party has been a serious problem for the party and the government. Premier Liu Chao-shiuan has an academic background. He held several key cabinet positions, beginning in the Lee Teng-hui era. But he never interacted closely with the Legislative Yuan. Premier Liu has made a great effort to get along with the legislature. The situation has gradually improved.

The Executive Yuan is the people’s highest representative body. It is not limited to 113 legislators. It represents the aggregate opinion of 23 million Republic of China citizens on Taiwan. Each legislator represents the diverse interests and needs of citizens from different electoral districts. Satisfying everyone is not easy. But one must at least satisfy a majority. Only then can one administer the nation smoothly. When the Legislative Yuan confronts the highest executive body, it is not merely confronting a premier appointed by president nominated by the KMT. It is also confronting the policy prescriptions of the ruling party and the government. The public doesn’t care whether the relationship between the legislature and executive is good or bad. They care only that the ruling Kuomintang government, which ostensibly has complete control, remains incapable of passing an important budget. That is why consultations between the executive and legislature are so important. Only prior consultation can ensure that policies are smoothly translated into budgets and bills in the legislature.

The failure to pass the central government budget on time came as a complete surprise. The KMT is the only major party in the Legislative Yuan. Even if the DPP resorts to procedural tricks, even if it makes hundreds of motions for floor votes, that is not a problem. The KMT has the numbers. In the end Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng brought down the gavel and adjourned the session. Procedurally speaking he had nothing to apologize for. But during Ah-Bian’s eight years of misrule, the legislature convened 16 times. Almost without exception, it burned the midnight oil on the very last day of each session in order to pass the budget. It even held two or three day marathon sessions. Legislative procedures have always allowed for longer or shorter sessions. The question is why Wang Jin-pyng was willing to burn the midnight oil for the Chen Shui-bian administration over the past eight years, but was unwilling to extend the last session for the Ma administration?

The general budget passed on its third reading, albeit a day late. It was cut by only 2 billion NT. The abrupt addition and subtraction of 2 billion forced the Executive Yuan to frantically shift funds hither and thither. It had to cut nearly one billion in grants and programs to the poor in order to make up the shortfall. One billion is an miniscule percentage of the central government’s overall budget. But for poor families in need of help, it is an astronomical amount. The Liu Cabinet’s two major policy themes were to improve the economy and to provide relief for the poor. But what has it done except cut aid to the economically disadvantaged? Given public perception, it is going to have a hard time explaining itself, even assuming it made the right decision. Was this budget cut really justified? Instead of cutting funds to the borderline poor, why not cut the huge defense budget? No wonder Minister of the Interior Liao Liao-yi went through the roof, and said that if the budget fell short by the end of the year, the Executive Yuan would have to find a way to make up the shortfall.

The legislature cut subsidies to the borderline poor. It even cut subsidies for child-care leave, a major plank in President Ma Ying-jeou’s election platform. All failed to pass because KMT legislators blocked them. The public doesn’t care whether Hou Tsai-feng, the legislator who blocked the budget, has a beef with Council of Labor Affairs Chairwoman Wang Ju-hsuan. It doesn’t care what item this budget falls under. It cares only that the subsidies are in place. Since they failed to pass, what is to become of President Ma’s campaign promises?

This budget begat this bill. The legislature adopted 90 motions during this session, including the abolition of the Anti-Hoodlum Act. The numbers might look good. But in his New Year’s Day speech President Ma stressed the importance of his draft amendment for the Statute for the Punishment of Corruption. The embarrassing fact is this plank in Ma Ying-jeou’s election platform, one of the keys to his victory, failed even to make it through the Legislature’s Procedural Committee. Justice Minister Wang Ching-feng could only say with frustration and regret that it was an embarrassment for all. Fortunately some political appointees are able to feel this way. The KMT’s image cannot be reformed through Ma Ying-jeou’s example of clean governance alone.

The KMT lost power. It has now regained power. The current situation is rife with problems. The Legislative Yuan’s words and deeds affect the futures of individual legislators, the continued survival of the Kuomintang administration. The presidential office, the legislature, and the party have a symbiotic relationship. They must seek unity by communicating and coordinating. They truly cannot afford to squabble over petty differences.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2009.01.17
第一大黨的立法成績單不該只有這樣
中時社論

第七屆立法院第二會期，在意外中加開一天臨時會結束，這個「小意外」讓馬政府九十八年度的中央政府總預算案晚了一天才完成三讀，對比過去歷年總預算案刪減 額度，立法院對劉內閣算是相當客氣，只比朝野協商百分之一，小加百分之零點一，多刪廿億。從數字上看，多一天、少廿億，只是小事，但是，對於在立法院擁有 八十多席絕對多數、已經完全執政的國民黨、總統府和行政院而言，絕對不能以「小事」觀之。

馬政府就任以來，府院黨協調一直是黨政運轉的重要問題，行政院長劉兆玄學界出身，即使在李登輝時代也歷任重要閣員，終究和立法院互動並不密切，劉揆花了很大功夫學習與國會的相處之道，始能漸入佳境。

對行政院而言，面對最高民意機關，不只是一百一十三席立委而已，而是全台灣二千三百萬人民的民意匯聚，每一個立委代表的是選區不同的利益和需求，要全部滿 足並不容易，但至少要做到多數滿足，如此施政才能順暢。對立法院而言，面對最高行政機關，不只是國民黨提名當選的總統所任命的行政院長，而是執政黨政府的 政策意向，民眾不會理解行政、立法兩院之間的關係是好是壞，只會懷疑為什麼完全執政的國民黨政府，還是有重大預算、重大法案不能順利通過？因此，任何重大 政策的產出，行政、立法兩院間的事間協商格外重要，唯有事前協商才可能確保政策化為預算和法案後，在國會能夠順利通關。

完全出人意表的是，中央政府總預算案竟然在會期最後一天未能如期通過。要知道國民黨在立法院畢竟是唯一大黨，即使民進黨使出議事招數，提出上百件表決議 案，對國民黨來說，數人頭爭勝絕對不是問題。立法院長王金平最後敲槌散會，於議事程序無虧，但回顧扁執政的八年期間，立院十六個會期，幾無例外的都是在會 期最後一天挑燈夜戰趕法案、趕預算案，甚至有連續開會二、三天以一次會計，議事程序本來就有空間讓立法院會可長可短，問題是為什麼過去八年，王金平願意為 扁政府的預算案挑燈夜戰，卻不願為了馬政府的預算案，在會期最後一天拚出一個結果？

遲了一天，總預算案還是完成三讀，只是多刪了廿億，因為這突如其來增刪的廿億，行政院東挪西調，竟以刪減近貧補助方案的十億湊數，十億在中央政府總預算案 裡只是非常小的數字，但對需要幫助的近貧家庭而言，卻是非常大的金額，尤其是劉內閣施政兩大主軸，一是拚經濟，二就是救弱勢，結果刪到弱勢族群的預算，從 社會觀感看，有理都說不清，何況刪這筆預算，真有理嗎？要刪近貧預算，為什麼不刪龐大的國防預算呢？難怪內政部長廖了以要翻臉，直言萬一到了年底預算不 足，還是得行政院想辦法彌補。

不但多刪了近貧補助預算，連馬英九總統在競選前、就任後都視之為重大政策的育嬰假津貼補助，都因為國民黨立委的阻擋未能過關，民眾不會問阻擋預算的立委侯 彩鳳到底和勞委會主委王如玄有什麼過節，也不會問這筆預算到底要編在哪個科目項下，重點是政府津貼補助要到位，預算既未過關，馬總統的政見還能兌現嗎？

預算如此，法案亦復如是。立法院這個會期通過九十個議案，包括檢肅流氓條例的廢止案，從數字成績單上來說算漂亮，尷尬的是，偏偏又是馬總統的重大政見、也 是馬英九當選的關鍵之一、馬總統元旦講話還特別強調、與廉能政治相關的《貪汙治罪條例》修正草案，竟連程序委員會都排不上，法務部長王清峰只能無奈地感 慨：「講開了大家難看！」只要政務官還有這樣的感慨，國民黨的形象就不可能只靠著馬英九要樹立的廉能形象而提升。

歷經失去政權、重新執政，時局又如此多艱，立法院的一言一行，與立委個人政治前途相關、與國民黨政權存續相關，府、兩院、與黨是不折不扣的生命共同體，只能溝通協調求團結，真的沒有嘔氣鬧心結的本錢。

A Poor Report Card for the Largest Party in the Legislature

A Poor Report Card for the Largest Party in the Legislature
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 17, 2009

The Seventh Legislative Yuan held a surprise plenary session. This surprise delayed the third reading of the Ma administration’s 2009 central government budget one full day. Compared to previous years, the Legislative Yuan went easy on the Liu Cabinet. It cut the budget only 1% more than discussed in consultations, a miniscule increase of 0.1%, only 2 billion NT. Judging by the numbers, one day more and 2 billion less is no big deal. But the KMT has over 80 seats in the Legislative Yuan, a supermajority. It should be in complete control. For the Office of the President and the Executive Yuan, this is a very big deal indeed.

Since the Ma administration took office, coordination between the presidential office, the legislature, and the party has been a serious problem for the party and the government. Premier Liu Chao-shiuan has an academic background. He held several key cabinet positions, beginning in the Lee Teng-hui era. But he never interacted closely with the Legislative Yuan. Premier Liu has made a great effort to get along with the legislature. The situation has gradually improved.

The Executive Yuan is the people’s highest representative body. It is not limited to 113 legislators. It represents the aggregate opinion of 23 million Republic of China citizens on Taiwan. Each legislator represents the diverse interests and needs of citizens from different electoral districts. Satisfying everyone is not easy. But one must at least satisfy a majority. Only then can one administer the nation smoothly. When the Legislative Yuan confronts the highest executive body, it is not merely confronting a premier appointed by president nominated by the KMT. It is also confronting the policy prescriptions of the ruling party and the government. The public doesn’t care whether the relationship between the legislature and executive is good or bad. They care only that the ruling Kuomintang government, which ostensibly has complete control, remains incapable of passing an important budget. That is why consultations between the executive and legislature are so important. Only prior consultation can ensure that policies are smoothly translated into budgets and bills in the legislature.

The failure to pass the central government budget on time came as a complete surprise. The KMT is the only major party in the Legislative Yuan. Even if the DPP resorts to procedural tricks, even if it makes hundreds of motions for floor votes, that is not a problem. The KMT has the numbers. In the end Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng brought down the gavel and adjourned the session. Procedurally speaking he had nothing to apologize for. But during Ah-Bian’s eight years of misrule, the legislature convened 16 times. Almost without exception, it burned the midnight oil on the very last day of each session in order to pass the budget. It even held two or three day marathon sessions. Legislative procedures have always allowed for longer or shorter sessions. The question is why Wang Jin-pyng was willing to burn the midnight oil for the Chen Shui-bian administration over the past eight years, but was unwilling to extend the last session for the Ma administration?

The general budget passed on its third reading, albeit a day late. It was cut by only 2 billion NT. The abrupt addition and subtraction of 2 billion forced the Executive Yuan to frantically shift funds hither and thither. It had to cut nearly one billion in grants and programs to the poor in order to make up the shortfall. One billion is an miniscule percentage of the central government’s overall budget. But for poor families in need of help, it is an astronomical amount. The Liu Cabinet’s two major policy themes were to improve the economy and to provide relief for the poor. But what has it done except cut aid to the economically disadvantaged? Given public perception, it is going to have a hard time explaining itself, even assuming it made the right decision. Was this budget cut really justified? Instead of cutting funds to the borderline poor, why not cut the huge defense budget? No wonder Minister of the Interior Liao Liao-yi went through the roof, and said that if the budget fell short by the end of the year, the Executive Yuan would have to find a way to make up the shortfall.

The legislature cut subsidies to the borderline poor. It even cut subsidies for child-care leave, a major plank in President Ma Ying-jeou’s election platform. All failed to pass because KMT legislators blocked them. The public doesn’t care whether Hou Tsai-feng, the legislator who blocked the budget, has a beef with Council of Labor Affairs Chairwoman Wang Ju-hsuan. It doesn’t care what item this budget falls under. It cares only that the subsidies are in place. Since they failed to pass, what is to become of President Ma’s campaign promises?

This budget begat this bill. The legislature adopted 90 motions during this session, including the abolition of the Anti-Hoodlum Act. The numbers might look good. But in his New Year’s Day speech President Ma stressed the importance of his draft amendment for the Statute for the Punishment of Corruption. The embarrassing fact is this plank in Ma Ying-jeou’s election platform, one of the keys to his victory, failed even to make it through the Legislature’s Procedural Committee. Justice Minister Wang Ching-feng could only say with frustration and regret that it was an embarrassment for all. Fortunately some political appointees are able to feel this way. The KMT’s image cannot be reformed through Ma Ying-jeou’s example of clean governance alone.

The KMT lost power. It has now regained power. The current situation is rife with problems. The Legislative Yuan’s words and deeds affect the futures of individual legislators, the continued survival of the Kuomintang administration. The presidential office, the legislature, and the party have a symbiotic relationship. They must seek unity by communicating and coordinating. They truly cannot afford to squabble over petty differences.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2009.01.17
第一大黨的立法成績單不該只有這樣
中時社論

第七屆立法院第二會期，在意外中加開一天臨時會結束，這個「小意外」讓馬政府九十八年度的中央政府總預算案晚了一天才完成三讀，對比過去歷年總預算案刪減 額度，立法院對劉內閣算是相當客氣，只比朝野協商百分之一，小加百分之零點一，多刪廿億。從數字上看，多一天、少廿億，只是小事，但是，對於在立法院擁有 八十多席絕對多數、已經完全執政的國民黨、總統府和行政院而言，絕對不能以「小事」觀之。

馬政府就任以來，府院黨協調一直是黨政運轉的重要問題，行政院長劉兆玄學界出身，即使在李登輝時代也歷任重要閣員，終究和立法院互動並不密切，劉揆花了很大功夫學習與國會的相處之道，始能漸入佳境。

對行政院而言，面對最高民意機關，不只是一百一十三席立委而已，而是全台灣二千三百萬人民的民意匯聚，每一個立委代表的是選區不同的利益和需求，要全部滿 足並不容易，但至少要做到多數滿足，如此施政才能順暢。對立法院而言，面對最高行政機關，不只是國民黨提名當選的總統所任命的行政院長，而是執政黨政府的 政策意向，民眾不會理解行政、立法兩院之間的關係是好是壞，只會懷疑為什麼完全執政的國民黨政府，還是有重大預算、重大法案不能順利通過？因此，任何重大 政策的產出，行政、立法兩院間的事間協商格外重要，唯有事前協商才可能確保政策化為預算和法案後，在國會能夠順利通關。

完全出人意表的是，中央政府總預算案竟然在會期最後一天未能如期通過。要知道國民黨在立法院畢竟是唯一大黨，即使民進黨使出議事招數，提出上百件表決議 案，對國民黨來說，數人頭爭勝絕對不是問題。立法院長王金平最後敲槌散會，於議事程序無虧，但回顧扁執政的八年期間，立院十六個會期，幾無例外的都是在會 期最後一天挑燈夜戰趕法案、趕預算案，甚至有連續開會二、三天以一次會計，議事程序本來就有空間讓立法院會可長可短，問題是為什麼過去八年，王金平願意為 扁政府的預算案挑燈夜戰，卻不願為了馬政府的預算案，在會期最後一天拚出一個結果？

遲了一天，總預算案還是完成三讀，只是多刪了廿億，因為這突如其來增刪的廿億，行政院東挪西調，竟以刪減近貧補助方案的十億湊數，十億在中央政府總預算案 裡只是非常小的數字，但對需要幫助的近貧家庭而言，卻是非常大的金額，尤其是劉內閣施政兩大主軸，一是拚經濟，二就是救弱勢，結果刪到弱勢族群的預算，從 社會觀感看，有理都說不清，何況刪這筆預算，真有理嗎？要刪近貧預算，為什麼不刪龐大的國防預算呢？難怪內政部長廖了以要翻臉，直言萬一到了年底預算不 足，還是得行政院想辦法彌補。

不但多刪了近貧補助預算，連馬英九總統在競選前、就任後都視之為重大政策的育嬰假津貼補助，都因為國民黨立委的阻擋未能過關，民眾不會問阻擋預算的立委侯 彩鳳到底和勞委會主委王如玄有什麼過節，也不會問這筆預算到底要編在哪個科目項下，重點是政府津貼補助要到位，預算既未過關，馬總統的政見還能兌現嗎？

預算如此，法案亦復如是。立法院這個會期通過九十個議案，包括檢肅流氓條例的廢止案，從數字成績單上來說算漂亮，尷尬的是，偏偏又是馬總統的重大政見、也 是馬英九當選的關鍵之一、馬總統元旦講話還特別強調、與廉能政治相關的《貪汙治罪條例》修正草案，竟連程序委員會都排不上，法務部長王清峰只能無奈地感 慨：「講開了大家難看！」只要政務官還有這樣的感慨，國民黨的形象就不可能只靠著馬英九要樹立的廉能形象而提升。

歷經失去政權、重新執政，時局又如此多艱，立法院的一言一行，與立委個人政治前途相關、與國民黨政權存續相關，府、兩院、與黨是不折不扣的生命共同體，只能溝通協調求團結，真的沒有嘔氣鬧心結的本錢。

Communist Agents within the Chen Administration

Communist Agents within the Chen Administration
United Daily News editorial
A Translation
January 16, 2009

Who knew the Chen Shui-bian administration was overrun with Communist agents? Eight years of Chen administration misrule has left the nation in ruins. One might say that this administration committed every nasty deed humanly imaginable or otherwise.

But who would have guessed that a Taiwan independence political regime would nurture Communist agents? Who would have guessed that Communist agents really were hiding under our beds? Suspected Communist agent Wang Jen-bing’s relationship with the Ah-Bian faction within the DPP goes way back. When Chen Shui-bian was mayor of Taipei, Chen Che-nan brought Wang into the Bureau of Education. Wang even became involved in the Longmen Junior High School site preparation scandal. Later, when Chen Shui-bian become president, Chen Che-nan brought Wang into the Under-Secretary-General’s Office as Copy Editor. He remained at that post until recently, under Cho Jung-tai, Under-Secretary-General Lin Chia-lung, and others. All in all, Wang Jen-bing’s relationship with the Ah-Bian faction goes back 15 to 16 years. Now we are learning that this person was a Communist agent?

Advocates of Taiwan independence are corrupt. That is no longer news. Since Chen Shui-bian assumed power, incidents of corruption by advocates of Taiwan independence have become too numerous to list. But veteran Ah-Bian faction official Wang Jen-bing has turned out to be a “Cash on Delivery,” traitor who sold national secrets to Beijing. This is truly an eye-opener. Green Camp advocates of Taiwan independence have relentlessly accused Pan Blues of “selling out Taiwan.” Now it turns out they themselves have been selling intelligence to Beijing.

The extent of Wang Jen-bing’s involvment has yet to be confirmed. Was this his first offense? Was he a long-time mole? We still don’t know. But the fact that an veteran Ah-Bian faction official such as Wang would “sell out Taiwan” in such a manner, forces one to reflect upon their mindset. One possibility is that Wang hated the Ma administration even more than Beijing, therefore chose to sell out Taipei and collude with Beijing. Another possibility is that as Wang watched Chen Che-nan and Chen Shui-bian wallow in corruption, and the Office of the President act as their accomplices, he reasoned, why not sell a little intelligence and earn a little extra pocket money?

Wang Jen-bing is hardly an isolated case. Many Green Camp people on Taiwan scream “Chinese pigs, get the hell back to China!” at fellow ROC citizens. Meanwhile, they fall over each other making deals with “Chinese” on the mainland for the sake of a buck. How much difference is there between these pro-independence businessmen and Wang Jen-bing? Beijing sees “Green Agents” as a rare, hence valuable commodity. What are these advocates of Taiwan independence doing, but playing their Deep Green credentials for all they are worth?

This case revives old anxieties. Slogans such as “Everyone has a responsibility to guard against Communist infiltration” come rushing back to mind. Another suspect, Chen Ping-jen, was an assistant to PFP Legislator Lin Chun-tak and KMT legislator Liao Kuo-tung. Who imagined he would become an accomplice of veteran Ah-Bian faction official Wang Jen-bing? Three parties are involved. The spy incident show that Communists really are hiding under our beds!

The case has raised other wide-ranging political concerns, including the loyalty of civil servants and political appointees following a change in ruling administrations. Wang Jen-bing is a vestige of the Chen Shui-bian administration. Following an administration change he turned into a Communist spy who sold national secrets to Beijing. His mindset is frightening. What has Wang thinking as he he sold information and received payment? That his action did not constitute treason merely because he disapproved of the Ma administration? How different was his mindset from Chen Shui-bian’s, who stashed his loot in a so-called “Nation-building Fund,” then reasoned he was innocent of corruption.

Broadly speaking, the second change in ruling parties plunged the government into just such a Wang Jen-bing style crisis. Just before the Democratic Progressive Party stepped down, it rushed to fill every position with “their people.” Even Ah-Bian’s maid was given a job in the Presidential Palace. The Ma administration, terrified of being accused that it was conducting a purge, dared not clean house, and the likes of Wang Jen-bing were kept on. As a result, after power was tranferred on May 20 last year, residues from the Green Regime’s nomenklatura have created problems for the new administration. These leftover Deep Green officials simply do not recognize the Republic of China. Such differences in national allegiance are hardly mere policy differences. In point of fact, they are the differences between sworn enemies. Wang Jen-bing may be an extreme case. As a civil servant, he not only betrayed the Ma administration, he also betrayed the nation. More leftover Green Regime officials remain within the current government. They may not collaborate with the enemy as flagrantly as Wang Jen-bing did. But they also refuse to recognize this nation, and they see the current administration as their political enemy. Their attitude, as they remain ensconced in their posts, is twofold. One, to keep collecting a paycheck from the nation, and two, to play a waiting game as political wild cards.

If Chen Shui-bian can characterize his ill-gotten gains as a “Nation-building Fund,” then Wang Jen-bing can characterize his selling of intelligence as a way to make a fool out of Ma Ying-jeou. It is worrisome enough that Chen Shui-bian thinks this way. But within our government many civil servants share Wang Jen-bing’s conceptions of loyalty. They consider the current administration their enemy. They consider the nation their enemy. This is unquestionably the most frightening risk the nation and the government face today.

The Republic of China’s ruling party may change at any time. But civil servants and political appointees may not distort the meaning of loyalty. The accused must correct their mindset regarding the change in ruling parties and the meaning of the law.

Otherwise, officials leftover from the previous administration, such as Wang Jen-bing, will be disloyal toward the current administration. They may even collaborate with the enemy to wreak vengeance upon the current government. Is this not sad? Is this not frightening?

驚聞陳水扁的總統府裡出匪諜
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.01.16 02:28 am

陳水扁的總統府裡竟然出匪諜，事態至此，禍國亂政八年的阿扁政權裡，可謂所有能夠想像與不能想像的惡人壞事皆已出盡作絕。

台獨政權，竟在總統府裡養匪諜，真是「匪」夷所思。共諜嫌犯王仁炳與扁系淵源久長，在陳水扁任市長時，就經陳哲男帶入教育局任職，還涉及龍門國中整地弊案；後來，陳水扁出任總統，又被陳哲男帶進了副祕書長辦公室擔任編審，歷經了卓榮泰、林佳龍等副祕書長，一直留任迄今。前後算一算王仁炳與扁系的淵源至少已經十五、六年；而這樣一個人，竟然是匪諜！

台獨分子會貪汙，不是新聞；自陳水扁以下，貪汙犯已是族繁不及備載。但是，扁系老臣王仁炳居然會是「一手交錢、一手交貨」出賣國家情報給中國的共諜，這回卻是令人開了眼界。難道綠營獨派口中不賣台，但可賣情報？

王仁炳涉案情態如何，尚待深入偵查；他究竟是初次涉案，或潛伏已久，亦未可知。但以王仁炳這樣一個扁系老臣，居然幹出這種「賣台」的匪諜勾當，其思想心態頗可探究。一種可能是：他在馬扁交接之際，已將馬政府視為比中國還要「優先」的敵人，因此出賣台灣、勾結中國。另一種可能是：他見到陳哲男貪汙，又看到陳水扁貪汙，更看到當時整個總統府成了貪汙的共犯結構，則他出賣情報賺些外快，有何不可？

王仁炳案不能視為個案，許多綠營人士在台灣對著自己人大喊「中國豬，滾回去」，卻與對岸的「中國人」猛作賺錢生意者，更大有人在。這些獨派生意人，與王仁炳賣情報，靠的豈不都是中共對他們的「綠色商標」另眼相看？「綠色匪諜」，在想像中當然是奇貨可居。

本案再度引發「保密防諜／人人有責」的警覺，另一嫌犯陳品仁曾是親民黨立委林春德及國民黨立委廖國棟的助理，居然會找上扁系的王仁炳成為共犯，這可謂是一個跨越三黨、關涉府會的共諜事件，豈不真是「匪諜就在你身邊」？

此案引起的另一層更廣泛的政治警覺，則是在政權更替時的公務員或政治性任命人員的忠貞問題。王仁炳是陳水扁的遺臣，他在政權更替之際，竟然搖身一變成為出賣國家情報的共諜，其思想心態實在可怕；當他出賣情報、收受價金之時，王仁炳會不會覺得，因為他根本不認同馬英九這個政府，所以也不覺得自己的行為是叛國賣台？此種思想心態與陳水扁殊途同歸，正如陳水扁把贓款說成「建國基金」，就自認不是貪汙！

就廣泛的意義來說，二次政黨輪替後，整個政府即已陷入此類「王仁炳危機」。民進黨在下台之際，幾乎將所有可以佔據的職位皆塞進了「自己人」，連阿卿嫂也在總統府佔了一個實缺；馬政府則因顧忌「排除異己」的譏評，不敢作果斷處置，如王仁炳者即留任至今。因而，自去年五二○交接後，一直出現綠朝遺臣與新政府的磨合問題；因為，有些色彩濃重的綠色遺臣，在政治理念上其實根本不承認中華民國，這種國家認同的歧異，已非政策觀念的差別，而在本質上其實是敵我之爭。王仁炳或許是一極端的特例，作為一個公務員，他不但背叛了馬政府，更已背叛了國家；然而，在今日政府中，另有更多的綠朝遺臣，他們雖不至於像 王仁炳這般「通敵資匪」，但他們卻也是懷持著根本不承認這個國家或以現政府為政治敵人的心態留任其位，一方面領國家的薪水，另一方面又儼然成為不測的政治變數。

如果陳水扁可將貪汙贓款說成「建國基金」，王仁炳亦可將出賣情報說成要馬英九出醜。陳水扁一人有此錯誤思想猶非可慮，但若在政府內部，竟有不少公務員在忠貞認同上，與王仁炳一般，是與現政府為敵，是與國家為敵，這卻無疑是國家與政府的可怕隱患。

台灣已走向隨時可能政權輪替的政黨政治。政黨可以輪替，但公務員及政治任命人員的忠貞意識不能扭曲；這在當事者的思想心態上，及關於政權交替的法律規制上，皆有匡正改造的空間。

否則，前朝遺臣如王仁炳者，非但不對現政府忠貞，甚至以通敵來報復現政府，豈不可怕可悲？

Communist Agents within the Chen Administration

Communist Agents within the Chen Administration
United Daily News editorial
A Translation
January 16, 2009

Who knew the Chen Shui-bian administration was overrun with Communist agents? Eight years of Chen administration misrule has left the nation in ruins. One might say that this administration committed every nasty deed humanly imaginable or otherwise.

But who would have guessed that a Taiwan independence political regime would nurture Communist agents? Who would have guessed that Communist agents really were hiding under our beds? Suspected Communist agent Wang Jen-bing’s relationship with the Ah-Bian faction within the DPP goes way back. When Chen Shui-bian was mayor of Taipei, Chen Che-nan brought Wang into the Bureau of Education. Wang even became involved in the Longmen Junior High School site preparation scandal. Later, when Chen Shui-bian become president, Chen Che-nan brought Wang into the Under-Secretary-General’s Office as Copy Editor. He remained at that post until recently, under Cho Jung-tai, Under-Secretary-General Lin Chia-lung, and others. All in all, Wang Jen-bing’s relationship with the Ah-Bian faction goes back 15 to 16 years. Now we are learning that this person was a Communist agent?

Advocates of Taiwan independence are corrupt. That is no longer news. Since Chen Shui-bian assumed power, incidents of corruption by advocates of Taiwan independence have become too numerous to list. But veteran Ah-Bian faction official Wang Jen-bing has turned out to be a “Cash on Delivery,” traitor who sold national secrets to Beijing. This is truly an eye-opener. Green Camp advocates of Taiwan independence have relentlessly accused Pan Blues of “selling out Taiwan.” Now it turns out they themselves have been selling intelligence to Beijing.

The extent of Wang Jen-bing’s involvment has yet to be confirmed. Was this his first offense? Was he a long-time mole? We still don’t know. But the fact that an veteran Ah-Bian faction official such as Wang would “sell out Taiwan” in such a manner, forces one to reflect upon their mindset. One possibility is that Wang hated the Ma administration even more than Beijing, therefore chose to sell out Taipei and collude with Beijing. Another possibility is that as Wang watched Chen Che-nan and Chen Shui-bian wallow in corruption, and the Office of the President act as their accomplices, he reasoned, why not sell a little intelligence and earn a little extra pocket money?

Wang Jen-bing is hardly an isolated case. Many Green Camp people on Taiwan scream “Chinese pigs, get the hell back to China!” at fellow ROC citizens. Meanwhile, they fall over each other making deals with “Chinese” on the mainland for the sake of a buck. How much difference is there between these pro-independence businessmen and Wang Jen-bing? Beijing sees “Green Agents” as a rare, hence valuable commodity. What are these advocates of Taiwan independence doing, but playing their Deep Green credentials for all they are worth?

This case revives old anxieties. Slogans such as “Everyone has a responsibility to guard against Communist infiltration” come rushing back to mind. Another suspect, Chen Ping-jen, was an assistant to PFP Legislator Lin Chun-tak and KMT legislator Liao Kuo-tung. Who imagined he would become an accomplice of veteran Ah-Bian faction official Wang Jen-bing? Three parties are involved. The spy incident show that Communists really are hiding under our beds!

The case has raised other wide-ranging political concerns, including the loyalty of civil servants and political appointees following a change in ruling administrations. Wang Jen-bing is a vestige of the Chen Shui-bian administration. Following an administration change he turned into a Communist spy who sold national secrets to Beijing. His mindset is frightening. What has Wang thinking as he he sold information and received payment? That his action did not constitute treason merely because he disapproved of the Ma administration? How different was his mindset from Chen Shui-bian’s, who stashed his loot in a so-called “Nation-building Fund,” then reasoned he was innocent of corruption.

Broadly speaking, the second change in ruling parties plunged the government into just such a Wang Jen-bing style crisis. Just before the Democratic Progressive Party stepped down, it rushed to fill every position with “their people.” Even Ah-Bian’s maid was given a job in the Presidential Palace. The Ma administration, terrified of being accused that it was conducting a purge, dared not clean house, and the likes of Wang Jen-bing were kept on. As a result, after power was tranferred on May 20 last year, residues from the Green Regime’s nomenklatura have created problems for the new administration. These leftover Deep Green officials simply do not recognize the Republic of China. Such differences in national allegiance are hardly mere policy differences. In point of fact, they are the differences between sworn enemies. Wang Jen-bing may be an extreme case. As a civil servant, he not only betrayed the Ma administration, he also betrayed the nation. More leftover Green Regime officials remain within the current government. They may not collaborate with the enemy as flagrantly as Wang Jen-bing did. But they also refuse to recognize this nation, and they see the current administration as their political enemy. Their attitude, as they remain ensconced in their posts, is twofold. One, to keep collecting a paycheck from the nation, and two, to play a waiting game as political wild cards.

If Chen Shui-bian can characterize his ill-gotten gains as a “Nation-building Fund,” then Wang Jen-bing can characterize his selling of intelligence as a way to make a fool out of Ma Ying-jeou. It is worrisome enough that Chen Shui-bian thinks this way. But within our government many civil servants share Wang Jen-bing’s conceptions of loyalty. They consider the current administration their enemy. They consider the nation their enemy. This is unquestionably the most frightening risk the nation and the government face today.

The Republic of China’s ruling party may change at any time. But civil servants and political appointees may not distort the meaning of loyalty. The accused must correct their mindset regarding the change in ruling parties and the meaning of the law.

Otherwise, officials leftover from the previous administration, such as Wang Jen-bing, will be disloyal toward the current administration. They may even collaborate with the enemy to wreak vengeance upon the current government. Is this not sad? Is this not frightening?

驚聞陳水扁的總統府裡出匪諜
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.01.16 02:28 am

陳水扁的總統府裡竟然出匪諜，事態至此，禍國亂政八年的阿扁政權裡，可謂所有能夠想像與不能想像的惡人壞事皆已出盡作絕。

台獨政權，竟在總統府裡養匪諜，真是「匪」夷所思。共諜嫌犯王仁炳與扁系淵源久長，在陳水扁任市長時，就經陳哲男帶入教育局任職，還涉及龍門國中整地弊案；後來，陳水扁出任總統，又被陳哲男帶進了副祕書長辦公室擔任編審，歷經了卓榮泰、林佳龍等副祕書長，一直留任迄今。前後算一算王仁炳與扁系的淵源至少已經十五、六年；而這樣一個人，竟然是匪諜！

台獨分子會貪汙，不是新聞；自陳水扁以下，貪汙犯已是族繁不及備載。但是，扁系老臣王仁炳居然會是「一手交錢、一手交貨」出賣國家情報給中國的共諜，這回卻是令人開了眼界。難道綠營獨派口中不賣台，但可賣情報？

王仁炳涉案情態如何，尚待深入偵查；他究竟是初次涉案，或潛伏已久，亦未可知。但以王仁炳這樣一個扁系老臣，居然幹出這種「賣台」的匪諜勾當，其思想心態頗可探究。一種可能是：他在馬扁交接之際，已將馬政府視為比中國還要「優先」的敵人，因此出賣台灣、勾結中國。另一種可能是：他見到陳哲男貪汙，又看到陳水扁貪汙，更看到當時整個總統府成了貪汙的共犯結構，則他出賣情報賺些外快，有何不可？

王仁炳案不能視為個案，許多綠營人士在台灣對著自己人大喊「中國豬，滾回去」，卻與對岸的「中國人」猛作賺錢生意者，更大有人在。這些獨派生意人，與王仁炳賣情報，靠的豈不都是中共對他們的「綠色商標」另眼相看？「綠色匪諜」，在想像中當然是奇貨可居。

本案再度引發「保密防諜／人人有責」的警覺，另一嫌犯陳品仁曾是親民黨立委林春德及國民黨立委廖國棟的助理，居然會找上扁系的王仁炳成為共犯，這可謂是一個跨越三黨、關涉府會的共諜事件，豈不真是「匪諜就在你身邊」？

此案引起的另一層更廣泛的政治警覺，則是在政權更替時的公務員或政治性任命人員的忠貞問題。王仁炳是陳水扁的遺臣，他在政權更替之際，竟然搖身一變成為出賣國家情報的共諜，其思想心態實在可怕；當他出賣情報、收受價金之時，王仁炳會不會覺得，因為他根本不認同馬英九這個政府，所以也不覺得自己的行為是叛國賣台？此種思想心態與陳水扁殊途同歸，正如陳水扁把贓款說成「建國基金」，就自認不是貪汙！

就廣泛的意義來說，二次政黨輪替後，整個政府即已陷入此類「王仁炳危機」。民進黨在下台之際，幾乎將所有可以佔據的職位皆塞進了「自己人」，連阿卿嫂也在總統府佔了一個實缺；馬政府則因顧忌「排除異己」的譏評，不敢作果斷處置，如王仁炳者即留任至今。因而，自去年五二○交接後，一直出現綠朝遺臣與新政府的磨合問題；因為，有些色彩濃重的綠色遺臣，在政治理念上其實根本不承認中華民國，這種國家認同的歧異，已非政策觀念的差別，而在本質上其實是敵我之爭。王仁炳或許是一極端的特例，作為一個公務員，他不但背叛了馬政府，更已背叛了國家；然而，在今日政府中，另有更多的綠朝遺臣，他們雖不至於像 王仁炳這般「通敵資匪」，但他們卻也是懷持著根本不承認這個國家或以現政府為政治敵人的心態留任其位，一方面領國家的薪水，另一方面又儼然成為不測的政治變數。

如果陳水扁可將貪汙贓款說成「建國基金」，王仁炳亦可將出賣情報說成要馬英九出醜。陳水扁一人有此錯誤思想猶非可慮，但若在政府內部，竟有不少公務員在忠貞認同上，與王仁炳一般，是與現政府為敵，是與國家為敵，這卻無疑是國家與政府的可怕隱患。

台灣已走向隨時可能政權輪替的政黨政治。政黨可以輪替，但公務員及政治任命人員的忠貞意識不能扭曲；這在當事者的思想心態上，及關於政權交替的法律規制上，皆有匡正改造的空間。

否則，前朝遺臣如王仁炳者，非但不對現政府忠貞，甚至以通敵來報復現政府，豈不可怕可悲？

Communist Agents within the Chen Administration

Communist Agents within the Chen Administration
United Daily News editorial
A Translation
January 16, 2009

Who knew the Chen Shui-bian administration was overrun with Communist agents? Eight years of Chen administration misrule has left the nation in ruins. One might say that this administration committed every nasty deed humanly imaginable or otherwise.

But who would have guessed that a Taiwan independence political regime would nurture Communist agents? Who would have guessed that Communist agents really were hiding under our beds? Suspected Communist agent Wang Jen-bing’s relationship with the Ah-Bian faction within the DPP goes way back. When Chen Shui-bian was mayor of Taipei, Chen Che-nan brought Wang into the Bureau of Education. Wang even became involved in the Longmen Junior High School site preparation scandal. Later, when Chen Shui-bian become president, Chen Che-nan brought Wang into the Under-Secretary-General’s Office as Copy Editor. He remained at that post until recently, under Cho Jung-tai, Under-Secretary-General Lin Chia-lung, and others. All in all, Wang Jen-bing’s relationship with the Ah-Bian faction goes back 15 to 16 years. Now we are learning that this person was a Communist agent?

Advocates of Taiwan independence are corrupt. That is no longer news. Since Chen Shui-bian assumed power, incidents of corruption by advocates of Taiwan independence have become too numerous to list. But veteran Ah-Bian faction official Wang Jen-bing has turned out to be a “Cash on Delivery,” traitor who sold national secrets to Beijing. This is truly an eye-opener. Green Camp advocates of Taiwan independence have relentlessly accused Pan Blues of “selling out Taiwan.” Now it turns out they themselves have been selling intelligence to Beijing.

The extent of Wang Jen-bing’s involvment has yet to be confirmed. Was this his first offense? Was he a long-time mole? We still don’t know. But the fact that an veteran Ah-Bian faction official such as Wang would “sell out Taiwan” in such a manner, forces one to reflect upon their mindset. One possibility is that Wang hated the Ma administration even more than Beijing, therefore chose to sell out Taipei and collude with Beijing. Another possibility is that as Wang watched Chen Che-nan and Chen Shui-bian wallow in corruption, and the Office of the President act as their accomplices, he reasoned, why not sell a little intelligence and earn a little extra pocket money?

Wang Jen-bing is hardly an isolated case. Many Green Camp people on Taiwan scream “Chinese pigs, get the hell back to China!” at fellow ROC citizens. Meanwhile, they fall over each other making deals with “Chinese” on the mainland for the sake of a buck. How much difference is there between these pro-independence businessmen and Wang Jen-bing? Beijing sees “Green Agents” as a rare, hence valuable commodity. What are these advocates of Taiwan independence doing, but playing their Deep Green credentials for all they are worth?

This case revives old anxieties. Slogans such as “Everyone has a responsibility to guard against Communist infiltration” come rushing back to mind. Another suspect, Chen Ping-jen, was an assistant to PFP Legislator Lin Chun-tak and KMT legislator Liao Kuo-tung. Who imagined he would become an accomplice of veteran Ah-Bian faction official Wang Jen-bing? Three parties are involved. The spy incident show that Communists really are hiding under our beds!

The case has raised other wide-ranging political concerns, including the loyalty of civil servants and political appointees following a change in ruling administrations. Wang Jen-bing is a vestige of the Chen Shui-bian administration. Following an administration change he turned into a Communist spy who sold national secrets to Beijing. His mindset is frightening. What has Wang thinking as he he sold information and received payment? That his action did not constitute treason merely because he disapproved of the Ma administration? How different was his mindset from Chen Shui-bian’s, who stashed his loot in a so-called “Nation-building Fund,” then reasoned he was innocent of corruption.

Broadly speaking, the second change in ruling parties plunged the government into just such a Wang Jen-bing style crisis. Just before the Democratic Progressive Party stepped down, it rushed to fill every position with “their people.” Even Ah-Bian’s maid was given a job in the Presidential Palace. The Ma administration, terrified of being accused that it was conducting a purge, dared not clean house, and the likes of Wang Jen-bing were kept on. As a result, after power was tranferred on May 20 last year, residues from the Green Regime’s nomenklatura have created problems for the new administration. These leftover Deep Green officials simply do not recognize the Republic of China. Such differences in national allegiance are hardly mere policy differences. In point of fact, they are the differences between sworn enemies. Wang Jen-bing may be an extreme case. As a civil servant, he not only betrayed the Ma administration, he also betrayed the nation. More leftover Green Regime officials remain within the current government. They may not collaborate with the enemy as flagrantly as Wang Jen-bing did. But they also refuse to recognize this nation, and they see the current administration as their political enemy. Their attitude, as they remain ensconced in their posts, is twofold. One, to keep collecting a paycheck from the nation, and two, to play a waiting game as political wild cards.

If Chen Shui-bian can characterize his ill-gotten gains as a “Nation-building Fund,” then Wang Jen-bing can characterize his selling of intelligence as a way to make a fool out of Ma Ying-jeou. It is worrisome enough that Chen Shui-bian thinks this way. But within our government many civil servants share Wang Jen-bing’s conceptions of loyalty. They consider the current administration their enemy. They consider the nation their enemy. This is unquestionably the most frightening risk the nation and the government face today.

The Republic of China’s ruling party may change at any time. But civil servants and political appointees may not distort the meaning of loyalty. The accused must correct their mindset regarding the change in ruling parties and the meaning of the law.

Otherwise, officials leftover from the previous administration, such as Wang Jen-bing, will be disloyal toward the current administration. They may even collaborate with the enemy to wreak vengeance upon the current government. Is this not sad? Is this not frightening?

驚聞陳水扁的總統府裡出匪諜
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.01.16 02:28 am

陳水扁的總統府裡竟然出匪諜，事態至此，禍國亂政八年的阿扁政權裡，可謂所有能夠想像與不能想像的惡人壞事皆已出盡作絕。

台獨政權，竟在總統府裡養匪諜，真是「匪」夷所思。共諜嫌犯Wang Jen-bing與扁系淵源久長，在陳水扁任市長時，就經陳哲男帶入教育局任職，還涉及龍門國中整地弊案；後來，陳水扁出任總統，又被陳哲男帶進了副祕書 長辦公室擔任編審，歷經了卓榮泰、林佳龍等副祕書長，一直留任迄今。前後算一算Wang Jen-bing與扁系的淵源至少已經十五、六年；而這樣一個人，竟然是匪諜！

台獨分子會貪汙，不是新聞；自陳水扁以下，貪汙犯已是族繁不及備載。但是，扁系老臣Wang Jen-bing居然會是「一手交錢、一手交貨」出賣國家情報給中國的共諜，這回卻是令人開了眼界。難道綠營獨派口中不賣台，但可賣情報？

Wang Jen-bing涉案情態如何，尚待深入偵查；他究竟是初次涉案，或潛伏已久，亦未可知。但以Wang Jen-bing這樣一個扁系老臣，居然幹出這種「賣台」的匪諜勾當，其思想心態頗可探究。一種可能是：他在馬扁交接之際，已將馬政府視為比中國還要「優 先」的敵人，因此出賣台灣、勾結中國。另一種可能是：他見到陳哲男貪汙，又看到陳水扁貪汙，更看到當時整個總統府成了貪汙的共犯結構，則他出賣情報賺些外 快，有何不可？

Wang Jen-bing案不能視為個案，許多綠營人士在台灣對著自己人大喊「中國豬，滾回去」，卻與對岸的「中國人」猛作賺錢生意者，更大有人在。這些獨派生意 人，與Wang Jen-bing賣情報，靠的豈不都是中共對他們的「綠色商標」另眼相看？「綠色匪諜」，在想像中當然是奇貨可居。

本案再度引發「保密防諜／人人有責」的警覺，另一嫌犯陳品仁曾是親民黨立委林春德及國民黨立委廖國棟的助理，居然會找上扁系的Wang Jen-bing成為共犯，這可謂是一個跨越三黨、關涉府會的共諜事件，豈不真是「匪諜就在你身邊」？

此案引起的另一層更廣泛的政治警覺，則是在政權更替時的公務員或政治性任命人員的忠貞問題。Wang Jen-bing是陳水扁的遺臣，他在政權更替之際，竟然搖身一變成為出賣國家情報的共諜，其思想心態實在可怕；當他出賣情報、收受價金之時，Wang Jen-bing會不會覺得，因為他根本不認同馬英九這個政府，所以也不覺得自己的行為是叛國賣台？此種思想心態與陳水扁殊途同歸，正如陳水扁把贓款說成 「建國基金」，就自認不是貪汙！

就廣泛的意義來說，二次政黨輪替後，整個政府即已陷入此類「Wang Jen-bing危機」。民進黨在下台之際，幾乎將所有可以佔據的職位皆塞進了「自己人」，連阿卿嫂也在總統府佔了一個實缺；馬政府則因顧忌「排除異己」 的譏評，不敢作果斷處置，如Wang Jen-bing者即留任至今。因而，自去年五二○交接後，一直出現綠朝遺臣與新政府的磨合問題；因為，有些色彩濃重的綠色遺臣，在政治理念上其實根本不 承認中華民國，這種國家認同的歧異，已非政策觀念的差別，而在本質上其實是敵我之爭。Wang Jen-bing或許是一極端的特例，作為一個公務員，他不但背叛了馬政府，更已背叛了國家；然而，在今日政府中，另有更多的綠朝遺臣，他們雖不至於像 Wang Jen-bing這般「通敵資匪」，但他們卻也是懷持著根本不承認這個國家或以現政府為政治敵人的心態留任其位，一方面領國家的薪水，另一方面又儼然成為 不測的政治變數。

如果陳水扁可將貪汙贓款說成「建國基金」，Wang Jen-bing亦可將出賣情報說成要馬英九出醜。陳水扁一人有此錯誤思想猶非可慮，但若在政府內部，竟有不少公務員在忠貞認同上，與Wang Jen-bing一般，是與現政府為敵，是與國家為敵，這卻無疑是國家與政府的可怕隱患。

台灣已走向隨時可能政權輪替的政黨政治。政黨可以輪替，但公務員及政治任命人員的忠貞意識不能扭曲；這在當事者的思想心態上，及關於政權交替的法律規制上，皆有匡正改造的空間。

否則，前朝遺臣如Wang Jen-bing者，非但不對現政府忠貞，甚至以通敵來報復現政府，豈不可怕可悲？