It was a foregone conclusion, as the System was never going to convict its own fair-haired boy, but it was formalized today as Ma was cleared today of embezzlement:Taipei District Court today (14) announced the opposition presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), cleared from the prosecution of his embezzlement trail. Ma was chairman of the Kuomintang until he resigned following his indictment. Ma, 57, has appeared several times in court since April the prosecutors accused he diverted NT$11 million of public money into his private account while taking his position as mayor of Taipei between 1998 and 2006.
The money was in his accounts, so Ma's position was it was OK to take it because it was intended as an income subsidy for government officials. The court upheld that position in a case in Tainan a while back.
I'm curious to see what the effect of this case will be on similar cases. Such as President Chen, whom prosecutors have gone after for doing the same thing Ma did.
[Taiwan] [KMT] [Ma Ying-jeou]
It was a foregone conclusion, as the System was never going to convict its own fair-haired boy
ReplyDeleteThe System? DPP controls it though :) Don't forget DPP is the ruling party. Stop been illogical Micheal.
Numerous people have been convicted for doing what Ma did. What will happen to them?
Who please? Be specific, thank you, I am lacking knowledge in this.
http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2007/new/feb/14/today-fo8.htm
ReplyDelete陳瑞仁喻馬 像偷東西不戴手套
特別費案辦下去 不會血流成河
〔記者林慶川／台北報導〕馬英九特別費案偵結，馬被起訴，陳瑞仁昨天指出，首長特別費案，每個案子情況不一樣，「辦下去，不會血流成河」。
陳瑞仁指出，目前查黑中心還有幾件特別費案，偵查方向與偵查步驟都已經出來了，全國有六千個首長，但有的人的特別費，每個月只有一、兩萬元，「只要有支出，基本上，我們都認定是特別費支出」。
陳瑞仁坦言，馬英九被起訴，有一部分原因，就是特別費領了，卻不用；另外，十七萬元特別費沒有用，也全領走，納為己有，「有些首長，特別費若有十七萬元，每個月只領七、八萬元的也有」。
對於外界質疑，馬英九的特別費匯入帳戶內，沒有刻意挪走，才會被起訴，反觀，國務費案，則是現金領走，根本沒法查。
陳瑞仁則說，國務費案，有查過，但清查時，因是領取現金，有「斷點」，這是「證據上的不公平，不是辦案上的不公平」，馬英九這種情況，就像是偷東西不戴手套，騎贓車不拆下車牌的小偷。
陳瑞仁說，此名小偷可能會辯稱，我沒有偷竊的意思，否則，怎麼會笨到不拆車牌、不戴上手套，但實際上，他的行為還是小偷。
對於日後最高檢特偵組成立後，若對特別費案的偵辦標準與見解與馬英九案不同，查黑中心會有何看法？陳瑞仁說，會起訴馬英九，就是確信會判有罪，不過，會尊重法院的判決。
Remember, the Greens won the election lawsuits in 2000 and 2004, and a number of other cases. DPP and its followers only bash the ROC's judiciary system when they lose.
ReplyDeleteLet me answer your questions.
President Chen's family corruption case is NOT the SAME thing as Ma's. For Ma's case, the disputes are over the half of the "special subsidy" that does NOT require invoices as proof of spending. Ma insisted, based on a number of government guidelines, regulations, and "modus operandi" that the said money was a de facto salary of the office-holder. For President Chen's case, the disputes are over the other half of the money that DOES require invoices (i.e. the real "public fund"), and one of the charges is that the first lady used FAKE invoices or irrelevant invoices to claim the money.
Do we have a list of anyone whos' been convicted for doing exactly this is the past?
ReplyDeleteSo, looks like the election won't be decided by the courts. Though I suppose Hsieh could still be charged on the "bribery" allegation, or whatever it is.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure it was a bad decision, more than Ma was lucky.
Arty:
ReplyDeleteThe System? DPP controls it though :) Don't forget DPP is the ruling party. Stop been illogical Michael
No, the prosecutors and police remain strongly pro-Blue. Are you not familiar with the political situation in Taiwan? The System remains pro-Blue.
Remember, the Greens won the election lawsuits in 2000 and 2004, and a number of other cases. DPP and its followers only bash the ROC's judiciary system when they lose.
We didn't lose, Thomas. Everyone lost. You don't get it, do you? This means that the Special Funds will go on and on, corrupting officials down in the future.
Also, you've come late to my blog, so I should tell you that I've always advocated an end to the Special funds and an amnesty for everyone.
Also, fake invoices were submitted in Ma's case as well. But Ma was able to successfully distance himself from that. In fact they are the norm in Taiwanese special funds behavior. Further, the half of the funds that required invoices was only changed to that after A-bian came to power, to limit his power. The entire case is political in nature and has nothing to do with what A-bian or his wife did.
Who has been convicted in the past? I'll check. I just found out I was wrong on two cases.
What Ma did was totally illegal, as he himself averred in the video A-gu posted the other day. It is also totally common.
The legal system is weird. In the similar case in Tainan, Mayor Hsu was acquitted because he had given away more than he had stolen, so he didn't steal to enrich himself -- the amount he gave away in gifts exceeded the size of the special fund. That must be a very common cultural logic, for both A-bian and Ma have turned to it. But it's completely bogus. In Ma's case he didn't spend the money, just accumulated it, year after year. So the money wasn't "stolen" because it wasn't used.
Sure.
I'm not reading the papers today. The foreign media will return to fawning over Ma, and it makes my stomach turn.
Michael
I've removed the comment until I can find more cases. All of the cases I thought were special funds were not, and in a couple of cases I thought were convictions, there weren't.
ReplyDeleteMichael
BTW< Thomas, I'll get back to that comment about the System when I post on this tomorrow, because it is the only thing more fundamental than the Blue-Green divide in Taiwan.
ReplyDeleteMichael
Regarding Thomas' comment about the requirement of invoices, the Taipei City government guidelines (http://w2.dbas.taipei.gov.tw/message/hotMsg.asp?msgSN=155), clearly state that the whole amount of "special fund" must be business-related, although half of it does not require invoices. However, no-invoice-necessary doesn't mean that it's part of salary.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDelete.
.
Hey Michael,
When your ready to stomach it -- our Hong Kong friend James Peng (Bloomberg) has chimed in with his "fair and balanced" reporting HERE.
Ma is quoted at the end...
"It is high time to stop wasting our country's resources."
LOL!!!
.
.
.
Michael:"I'm curious to see what the effect of this case will be on similar cases. Such as President Chen, whom prosecutors have gone after for doing the same thing Ma did."
ReplyDeleteThis might cause a lot of misunderstanding. Chen didn't put the fund into his own pockets, Ma did.
Michael:"In Ma's case he didn't spend the money, just accumulated it, year after year."
Didn't he? During the investigation they found invoices of purchasing personal daily items.
I am confused. Are we talking about different cases ?
thomas:Ma insisted, based on a number of government guidelines, regulations, and "modus operandi" that the said money was a de facto salary of the office-holder.
ReplyDeleteMa claimed it's part of the salary ONLY AFTER he was found to have pocketed it. Before then he said it crystal clear that it's not part of salary.
Look at the video clip a-gu and Michael posted please. Ma even attacked the city councilwoman as "being lack of basic law knowledge," because to him AT THAT TIME every law man should know that it's NOT salary.
We didn't lose, Thomas. Everyone lost. You don't get it, do you? This means that the Special Funds will go on and on, corrupting officials down in the future.
ReplyDeleteA deep-green Taiwanese poli-sci professor I knew, who was President Chen's close adviser, once said to me that Ma's case is indeed kind of a revenge from the DPP, whose President Chen was troubled by corruption charges initiated by blue politicians.
In fact proposal from Ma and his lawyers is kinda close to what you said about amnesty. I agree that you can find regulations saying that Ma's conducts are illegal, but Ma also managed to find stuff showing what he had done was a modus operandi (yes, a "common problem") backed by explanations from upper government agencies. So it was a problem of the system, you are right; and Ma said that too, and a very first comments by his lawyer after the sentence was that "now is the time to revise the system and plug the flaws...."
BTW have you read the full text of the court's decision? I think it helps explain a bit.
No, the prosecutors and police remain strongly pro-Blue. Are you not familiar with the political situation in Taiwan? The System remains pro-Blue.
ReplyDeleteThat may be true...but think about the reasons in behind:
KMT has long been a conservative party representing the upper class and upper middle class (that's why they lost to Mao's communists, who was backed by grassroot peasants), while DPP is a left-wing, grass-root, nativist and populist party.
(you certainly know about the "lefts and rights" in Taiwanese politics right?)
In most republics, the judiciary branch is usually the more elite-oriented, more conservative, more undemocratic-looking one (like the US, where the Supreme Court seems to me the most important stabilizer of the republic). So that is the fundamental reason why the system remained "blue looking." However, it is more than that... In the presidential election cases it ruled in favor of DPP (which proved that it is not entirely pro-blue), so that rallies and movements can be over and people can get back to work.
I know you don't like KMT, just like the Democratic kids around me wish there were not a single Republican in the country. But think about what Taiwan will look like without KMT. Populist, grass-root movements can easily run into the dead end of irrationality, just like Hitler was elected in a disgust against the "dominant class" that abode peace treaties, suppress nationalistic sentiments and made the Deutschland miserable.
So, a country must be simultaneously a republic and a democracy to avoid being over-reactionary and over-sentimental at the same time. PRC is now a republic (an oligarchic one) but not a democracy, so you see elites ripping off profits from the people. Oppositely, ROC needs the more conservative voice to remain a republic.
In fact, if you read BBS on Mainland China, some pro-Beijing Chinese say they would love DPP to win, destroy the "Republic of China," (the last stronghold against the Communists) and "screw up" Taiwan so that Beijing can crush it with force. Maybe a bit extreme, but think about it...all countries act to their own interests and "justice, rights" are , most of the time, just the name. There's no altruism in international politics.....so if Taiwan does not want to live under Beijing's rule, the best way to do it is to back off from its current stance and seek for a more defendable position.
For example, Taiwan's bid for UN was futile and I don't think it will do the island any good to blame the UN for this and that. Earlier, a high-rank official from the Clinton administration told me that he once tried to help the two sides negotiate a treaty of "maintaining the status-quo." Contrary to public perception of greedy Communists, Beijing was very interested in the plan and agreed that Taiwan can be given more room of international visibility under the treaty (even participation in WHO and UN, etc). President Chen, on the contrary, was lukewarm about the idea. To him the NAME of independence matters more because of elections. So in some cases, the more you fight, the less you get.
Westerners sometimes don't seem to understand the Confucian strategy of 以退為進 and 退一步海闊天空.
"Who has been convicted in the past?"
ReplyDeleteA case was mentioned in today's (Aug 14) Talk Show (大話新聞), section 2. It involved a former Taipei MRT chief for using special fund in paying his household utility bills.
>>
ReplyDeleteKMT has long been a conservative party representing the upper class and upper middle class (that's why they lost to Mao's communists, who was backed by grassroot peasants), while DPP is a left-wing, grass-root, nativist and populist party.
(you certainly know about the "lefts and rights" in Taiwanese politics right?)
>>
Thomas,
You seem to be pretty new to the Taiwan issue. There is no left and right in Taiwan. One will get a distorted view when he/she looks at the politics in Taiwan thru a typical left-right lens.
You might also want to take another look at how CKS and his army lost the civil war.
You seem to be pretty new to the Taiwan issue. There is no left and right in Taiwan. One will get a distorted view when he/she looks at the politics in Taiwan thru a typical left-right lens.
ReplyDeleteYou might also want to take another look at how CKS and his army lost the civil war.
Look, another judgmental statement (I am afraid you are American, too, right?) Of course you can't look at Taiwanese politics thru a typical" left-right lens. But that doesn't mean there isn't an atypical left-right distinction (which is sort of related to the traditional one, but not quite). Taiwan's peculiar situation bestowed peculiar meanings to "left" and "right." I didn't make that up, in fact it's the DPP's followers who came up with that distinction. If you don't know about it, sorry, it seems that it's you, not me, who is new to Taiwanese politics.
I studied many different versions of explanations to CKS's defeat, which all contain certain degree of truth. So even if you can come up with some valid points, they are most likely no counter-argument to mine.
KMT's elitist orientation was only part of the reason, of course, but that doesnt disprove my points.
Thomas, I have some comments on your comments. Please visit:
ReplyDeleteMiss Fu（福小姐）And Hearsay
I particularly enjoy Thomas's contribution on this blog. I feel that he is being unjustly targeted and labeled as "hearsay competitions". Taiwan echo, if you were after a completely referenced and peer-reviewed paper, then I kindly ask that you do yourself a favour and stop blogging. How is portraying his opinion as "brain washing" help the process of healing and reconciliation?
ReplyDeleteKeep up the good work Thomas.
Thomas: Taiwan's peculiar situation bestowed peculiar meanings to "left" and "right." I didn't make that up, in fact it's the DPP's followers who came up with that distinction.
ReplyDeleteAny reference to support that your left-right classification on Taiwan politics did come from DPP followers?
I have been an active participant and frequent net-poster for 5~6 years but I seldom see pro-greeners talk about Taiwan politics in the left-right manner. Certainly that doesn't mean it didn't happen, but any reference will help.
The Talking Show (大話新聞) clip mentioned above can be viewed here.
ReplyDelete(In my experience, you should let the first clip finish playing before clicking the link for Part 2 of the video to avoid a crash of your browser.)
By the way, Thomas, Confucius doesn't own those strategies; therefore, they're not part of some "Chinese thing" that "Westerners [couldn't possibly ever] understand." Have you ever heard the sayings "Haste makes waste" or "Turn the other cheek"?
On the other hand, just how long do you figure the people of Taiwan should endure the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)? And why doesn't the very Chinese KMT seem to understand the saying at all?
Tim Maddog
y: How is portraying his opinion as "brain washing"
ReplyDeleteYou don't seem to know what "expressing opinion" is.
If I say: "I saw y made love with a guy right on the street last night"
Is that an opinion? No ! I was describing a process, and if it is unverifiable, it becomes a rumor !
The two things about Thomas I pointed out on my blog belong to this category. No they are not "opinions."
Thank you y. At the same time I do appreciate their reminder on the issue of credibility.
ReplyDelete子曰：三人行必有我師
子曰：見賢思齊焉，見不賢而內省也
both have the implication that we can always learn from others, whether we approve their actions or not.
and to answer Taiwan echo's question:
I learned about that distinction when former Pres. Lee once mentioned that the TSU shall pursue a "center-left" cause, and I didn't know what it means. So I asked one of my fellow students from Taiwan, who is also a political science major, and he explained to me about it. So yes, you are right in that the traditional left-right distinction does not apply here; but if we put it into the context, the left-right model can still shed some light on the pattern of political behavior... It's just that, people may have different way of describing it.
And to Tim, I bet you can tell the difference between "Confucius" and "Confucian." Confucian culture is a much larger concept, which encompasses much of the extensions of Confucius's ideology. But if you read The Analects of Confucius, you will find the similar IDEAs everywhere.
I remember a colorful American joke.
ReplyDeleteA big bull and a small bull were standing on the top of a hill. The small bull said to the big bull: "Look at that! There are so many beautiful cows! Let us rush down there and have one of them!" The big bull told his young partner: "No. Let us walk down the hill elegantly and enjoy all of them."
I would say some people should enjoy their fun on one cow while they can.
>>
ReplyDelete... when former Pres. Lee once mentioned that the TSU shall pursue a "center-left" cause, and I didn't know what it means. ...
>>
Thomas,
I believe TSU got it wrong. TSU as a political party has constantly shown its inability to comprehend the political landscape. That has caused its lost influence and declining presence.
There is quite obvious a divide. But I don't believe it is divided into left and right in the traditional way. Unless you are talking about one that identifies with the country on left side of Taiwan strait, and the other that identifies the other country that is on right side of the strait. But DPP will be the right in this case. ;)
The Chinese history is filled with a long series of elitist regime changes. There is nothing wrong with an elitist government from the Chinese perspective. And being elitist itself does not cause a regime to lose the right to govern.
It was only when the ruler, the Son of Heaven, no longer able to give the people peace and keep things in order did he lose Haven's mandata to rule over "tien hsia."
The CCP today, despites its root, is in every way an elitist party. And China today is ruled by an elistist government. And by making "reunification" with Taiwan a core goal of the party, the CCP regime has effectively linked its own legitimacy, mandate of Heaven, with Taiwan.
"Who has been convicted in the past?"
ReplyDeleteThe case involved the former Taipei MRT chief was reported at
http://www.epochtimes.com/b5/1/5/16/n89106.htm
May 16, 2001
前捷運局長齊寶錚貪污案高院更審判12年
【大紀元5月16日訊】前捷運局長齊寶錚被訴違法利用首長特支費，支付私人住宅水電費等案，台灣高等法院16日更一審宣判，合議庭認為，齊寶錚「事前牟利、事後分贓」，改依較重的貪污治罪條例圖利、利用職務詐取財物等罪，判處應執行刑12年、褫奪公權6年，犯罪所得181萬餘元追繳沒收，另外，齊寶錚另涉捷運淡水線電聯車採購弊案，退回檢察官偵辦。