Office of the President
Republic of China (Taiwan)
November 5, 2006
President Chen Shui-bian held a press conference this evening at the Office of the President to provide further explanations in response to the prosecutor's final report on the "discretionary state affairs fund" (hereafter, the "state affairs fund") investigation. The president's address was followed by questions from members of the media. Presidential Office Secretary-General Mark Chen and Deputy Secretaries-General Cho Jung-tai and Liu Shih-fang were also in attendance.
In his address, in addition to expressing his views on the state affairs fund investigation report and making clarifications, the president also made two declarations:
"First, my integrity and reputation as a clean and upright person are more important than my life, and the question of whether I will remain in office or resign is too trivial for me to care about. I believe history will vindicate me, and that the judicial process will exonerate me. I have no desire to cling to the presidency, and I will not wait for the verdict in an appeal to the Supreme Court. If I am found guilty of corruption in the Court of First Instance, I will immediately step down. Second, though it is of no importance for the public to know of the inner struggle caused by conflict between obligations to the nation and to defend my reputation, what I would say is that as President, I deeply love Taiwan, deeply love my country; hence, for the sake of Taiwan's national interests, there are certain sensitive, top-secret diplomatic tasks that I cannot speak of, period. If I am misunderstood and treated unjustly because I can't speak out, I am willing to sacrifice my personal desires for the sake of fulfilling my larger calling."
The full text of the president's address is as follows:
My Dear Fellow Countrymen, Friends from the Media:
Good evening to you all.
I hereby offer my most profound apologies to the people, and to my colleagues in as well as long-term supporters of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), for the damage that the investigative procedure and the resultant indictments in the "state affairs fund" case has caused to the nation's image; for the disturbance to society and the turmoil in the political sphere that it has engendered; and for the great injury to the DPP it has brought.
I would also like to express my appreciation for and gratitude to Prosecutor Eric Chen, other prosecutors assisting in this case, and all other prosecutorial and investigative personnel involved in the investigation of this case for their hardworking and independent spirit in the face of all kinds of pressure over the past few months. Although some of the indictment's contents are disputable and even unacceptable, such an outcome of the investigation can nevertheless be regarded as a victory for Taiwan's judiciary and a democratic achievement in which we can take pride.
The indictment alleges that over a period of five years, my wife and I embezzled a total of about NT$14.8 million [approximately US$456,000] of public funds by using 712 receipts, of which the smallest is for the sum of NT$129 (US$3.90). For a political figure, such an allegation is a political death sentence and is very painful to bear. I would like to ask you all: Could I possibly have engaged in such corruption? Do I need to use this method in order to get money illegally?
Collecting receipts worth NT$14.8 million over a period of five years--and not even giving up the chance to use a receipt for the miniscule sum of NT$129--that comes to an average of less than NT$3 million per year. If I really wanted to engage in corruption and used this method, I would have known that I wouldn't be able to face judicial action. We all know that, according to the Constitution and Interpretation No. 388 of the Judicial Yuan's Council of Grand Justices, "The President shall not, without having been recalled, or having been relieved of his functions, be liable to criminal prosecution unless he is charged with having committed an act of rebellion or treason."
This is the respect and protection granted to the president by the Constitution in consideration of his position as the head of state--his very important position as commander-in-chief of the nation's army, navy, and air force, and his special capacity as the representative of the Republic of China (Taiwan) to the outside world. The head of state's right to immunity from criminal prosecution is by no means designed to protect the individual sitting as president, but to protect the office of the presidency. As the head of state, and as one who has a legal background, I am quite aware of the contents of Article 52 of the Constitution and Interpretation No. 388 of the Judicial Yuan's Council of Grand Justices.
So when the case was just getting under way--as well as a few years ago, when I went to Hualien to testify in a certain case in my concurrent capacity as DPP chairman--many constitutional scholars and senior legal experts advised me not to give testimony, arguing that immunity from criminal prosecution is not a right that belongs to me personally, and that I do not have the right to waive it. It is a type of protection and respect bestowed [upon the presidency] by the nation's constitutional system. Therefore, they strongly opposed my going to Hualien to testify, and in this case, of course, their advice was not different. They hoped I would act in accordance with Article 52 of the Constitution and the interpretation of the Judicial Yuan's Council of Grand Justices, arguing it was necessary to firmly abide by the explicit provisions of the Constitution. One could not transgress or break such rules.
Just as I chose to testify in Hualien, however, in this case I also fully cooperated with the prosecutor in carrying out his legal duties. I also expressed to him in person that I was willing to forego immunity from criminal prosecution. The first round of questioning took place in the Office of the President from 4 p.m. to 9 p.m. without stopping for dinner. The second round took place in the presidential residence from 9 p.m. to 1:30 a.m., likewise without any break.
This attitude demonstrated our respect for the judiciary and our willingness to cooperate with and support the prosecutor in exercising his authority in accordance with law. For that is precisely the principle I stand by--that nothing is more important than respecting the judicial process. Naturally, submitting to this process also reflected my innermost being. In the face of such accusations, I felt peaceful in spirit. If I had had something to hide, I could very easily have chosen to flash my protective talismans--Article 52 of the Constitution and Interpretation No. 388 of the Judicial Yuan's Council of Grand Justices. Not only did I not do so; neither did I request a lawyer to be present. I believed that I was able to withstand the prosecutor's questioning and related investigation.
The prosecutor claims that I have used 712 receipts to embezzle NT$14.8 million over the course of five years. The first point I would like to make is that, as you all know, the President's monthly salary was NT$840,000 when I was elected in 2000. I felt ill at ease accepting such a salary, as I did not take on the presidency for the money, but rather for the country and for the people. So I wanted to save the country money, partly because the economy was in a downturn, people were having difficulty finding work, and even then, their jobs were demanding. It felt wrong receiving so much money for being President. So I voluntarily cut my monthly salary by half, to NT$420,000. Anyone can do the math. If you receive a total of 13.5 months' salary per annum, cut that salary by half and you get NT$5.5 million less per year. That's NT$22 million less after four years, and NT$33 million less after six years. If it's eight years, then you get NT$44 million less.
Drawing one's salary is perfectly legal by any standards. Thus, if I was willing to forego half of my salary and receive NT$22 million less over four years, NT$33 million less over six years, and NT$44 million less over eight years, use common sense: Would I really have the need to use 712 receipts--including one for NT$129--to embezzle NT$14.8 million?
Second, you can probably still remember that the President also has secret national security accounts for use at his personal discretion. The accounts are commonly known as the Fong Tian Special Project and were set up in 1994. Former President Lee Teng-hui transferred the accounts to me when I took office in 2000 and stated that the accounts' annual disposable funds had averaged at roughly NT$110 million from 1994 to 2000. However, I gave official written instructions that the funds be returned to the national treasury in their entirety, and this was completed in February 2002. Had I wanted to embezzle, the Fong Tian Special Project would have been an opportunity, as the fund in which the money was placed yielded interest. There was so much money up for grabs each year, nothing needed to pass through legislative reviews, and the accounts were not required to undergo examination by the Ministry of Audit (National Audit Office). I also noticed that, during the six years that the accounts had been in use, there were no receipts for 75 of the 100 cases in which the funds were employed.
Had I so desired, would that not have made the perfect opportunity? Not only did I not take it, but I also returned all of the funds to the national treasury. In addition to the Fong Tian Special Project, there was also the Dang Yang Special Project, for which I returned the funds to the national treasury in their entirety, also in 2002. Having given up annual disposable funds of NT$110 million from the Fong Tian Special Project, which I did not want, do you really think that I would still go to the pains of collecting receipts in order to embezzle NT$14.8 million?
I would also like to raise a third point for your reference. Two cases were mentioned in the indictment--one involving a certain foreign public relations firm code-named "F" and another for assisting mainland pro-democracy activists. The amount of funds used in these two cases totaled NT$42 million. Whereas NT$12 million was claimed with (receipts), the other NT$30 million was based on withdrawal slips. (Note: Receipts provided purposes for which the withdrawn money was employed; withdrawal slips do not specify such purposes.) Basic math tells us that, had I been corrupt, I would have put that NT$30 million straight into my pocket. Why would I need to take it out? If I could get NT$30 million worth of confidential fund without having to produce receipts, why would I go through the trouble of collecting receipts to embezzle NT$14.8 million? If I didn't want NT$30 million in my pocket, why would I take NT$14.8 million? Does it seem likely? Does it conform to logic and empirical principles? I hope that you can all think about it a little more carefully.
The fourth point I want to make is this: Everyone can compare [the following facts with the indictment allegations] to judge whether there was any motive for corruption, and whether there has in fact occurred any corruption. The numbers I will present to you are very important.
Over the past five years, from the year of 2002 to April 2006, of the entire confidential expenditures, about NT$ 8 to 9 million were used as bonuses given to government officials on the three major traditional holidays. After excluding this expenditure and the routine expenses, the amount of money left for spending without the need of submitting receipts as proof of expenditures was about NT$59 million. On top of this amount, if we add on the NT$12 million total value of certificates and receipts identified by the prosecutor, or the NT$14.8 million I was accused of taking from the government, along with NT$4.5 million I borrowed from other people for the maintenance of temporary financial balance, the total amount of money at my disposal should have been about NT$90 million.
Yet my actual expenditures in the past five years came to at least NT$94 million. Given credits of NT$90 million and debits of NT$94 million, there simply wouldn't have been enough money, so how could there have been any money left to put in my pocket?
These are very important figures, and it is simple to calculate. I offer this for public reference and welcome people's comment. Is Chen Shui-bian the type of person who could have done this? Do I need to use such a gimmick as collecting receipts in order to be corrupt? [As the saying goes,] "There isn't enough food even to eat fresh, let alone worth drying to store up."
Further, I also want to report to the nation's people that many people are confused about what "state affairs fund" means and what they are used for. Many people have different understandings of them, to the extent that even the accounting categories they are listed under have been repeatedly changed, and there exists no comprehensive standard.
The newspapers and TV news reported that the Ministry of Audit lists them under the category of "operations fund," while the Directorate of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) treats them as "special expenditures." (Note: Operations fund is used for official purposes, whereas special expenditures can cover personal expenses.) If the Ministry of Audit and the DGBAS have different understandings, how can ordinary people figure it out? Even civil servants such as us sometimes can't be certain. This is particularly true of the detailed table I'm holding here, showing changes in the classifications of the purposes of state affairs fund expenditures and their corresponding accounting classifications over the period 1991 to 2006. The changes that happened after 2001 are enough to leave you dizzy in a thick fog.
The "discretionary state affairs fund" has also been called at various times the "special and confidential fund," "special confidential fund," "special fund," and the "special fund for government heads," as well as the "special and discretionary fund,""discretionary and confidential fund," and "operations and discretionary fund." As such, it is impossible to agree on just what this fund really is. We cannot fully understand to what purpose the state affairs fund is to be put, or to which category it should be placed in, with the incessant changing of names and uses to which it is put. These usages and categories are really hard for us to follow.
I don't know how many of you could listen to and understand what I just read. It is so complicated and confusing. The indictment especially draws a distinction between "confidential fund" and "non-confidential fund." However, I would like to tell you that there is no such accounting category as non-confidential fund. The prosecutor defined confidential funds as those reimbursed directly by virtue of producing withdrawal slips rather than invoices or receipts, while non-confidential funds are those reimbursed by virtue of producing invoices or receipts. In fact, "non-confidential expenditures" is a term created by the prosecutor himself, rather than an accounting category.
Now I would like you to recall that, under KMT rule, someone was found to have withdrawn NT$1.2 million each month from the non-confidential funds with withdrawal slips for ten months in a row, a total of NT$12 million. Hasn't the prosecutor said that non-confidential expenditures can only be reimbursed based upon production of receipts or invoices, and not of withdrawal slips? But in the past, withdrawal slips could also be used to obtain reimbursement for non-confidential expenditures. Therefore, disagreements between the Ministry of Audit and DGBAS, as well as the constant changes of accounting categories, have made us all confused.
Even the so-called past practices of the presidential office were in fact inconsistent. So how is it allowed and by what means? It is really confusing and difficult to comprehend, and there weren't classes being given on it. On the other hand, we must try to figure out whether or not, as the nation's leader, the President should have a special allowance just like that of other administrative heads of government. The vice president, presidents of the five Yuans, Cabinet ministers, and even county magistrates and village chiefs all have a special allowance, whereas we cannot find this special allowance in the Presidential Office's budget proposal. A company's chairman and general manager are granted an expense account, but is it appropriate that a nation's head of state does not have a special allowance? Is this state affairs fund equivalent to an expense account or a special allowance? We all know that the premier has a special affairs fund that amounts to tens of millions of NT dollars in addition to a special allowance. But if the President's state affairs fund is not regarded as a special affairs fund, then what is a special affairs fund? The Ministry of Audit said that it is an operations fund, a fund for general affairs, and the regulations [concerning it] should be followed without exception. What is the President supposed to do? A president is not in a better position than the vice president, the presidents of the five Yuans, or even a village chief. Shouldn't a president also have an expense account? Such is the nature of the state affairs fund.
If we do not reexamine it and institute a system, this matter will cause endless trouble. It is not I alone who will have trouble, as (Taipei City's) Mayor Ma (Ying-jeou) and other government heads will also often find themselves in difficult situations in which misunderstandings will occur. I believe Mayor Ma is not the kind of person who would put the special allowance into his own account, into his own pocket--most certainly not. This is a problem with the system, and the special allowances for government administrative heads involve so much controversy.
I believe the problem lies in the system. The special allowances allocated to various heads of governments have also attracted much controversy. I believe that, the President, as the only person in the entire country needing the state affairs fund, has been labeled as corrupt because of diverging views as to the very nature of this fund. I feel sorrowful for this wrong, as it is almost impossible to bear.
We collected receipts from July 2002 to 2006. Why did we do this then and not in 2000 and 2001? It was not merely for the sake of doing so, nor was it any kind of preparation for subsequent graft. We can take a look at the reasons for doing as we did.
First, former presidents were able to divert money around the state affairs fund as well as retaining it for its original purpose. What does this mean? Basically, if funds allocated as confidential were insufficient, non-confidential fund could be diverted to confidential to make up for those funds. Expenses could be diverted between the two. And so, even non-confidential expenditures, for which receipts should have been supplied, could be diverted to confidential at any time. Once becoming confidential, non-confidential expenditures originally requiring proof of receipt no longer required receipts, and so funds could be pushed between the two at will, with one being exchanged for the other. Such practice continued through 2000 and 2001.
In 2002, however, the auditing agency stated that this was not possible, and that expenses could only be reimbursed by submitting receipts. This is the first point.
The second point is that--and I was talking about this just now--there was NT$110 million in disposable funds in the Fong Tian Special Project, and the funds were returned to the national treasury in January 2002. Funds from the Dang Yang Special Project were returned to the treasury in October of the same year. In doing so, money at the President's disposal comprised only the state affairs fund that remained. There were no more national security secret accounts, and therefore no money to be kept and used at the President's own discretion. The bills of indictment mention a special mission code-named "F", to which a special mission code-named "C" was the predecessor. To our understanding, funds given to the foreign PR company in the case were covered by the Fong Tian Special Project in the past. And, one year [after these funds were returned to the national coffers], the budgeting agency provided a little funding to the national security agency, so the funds were thereafter incorporated into the annual budget [to cover the expenditures on foreign PR companies].
When I was reelected in 2004, this company said that if we did not renew the contract, they would do business with China, which would like to hire them to handle public relations. We felt that this was a matter of national interest. They had done so many things for us and knew so many secrets, which might greatly affect our national interest. It was only for this reason that I decided to renew the contract for one year. But there was no Fong Tian Special Project and [therefore] no national security agency's annual budget to cover the expense. And it was only for this reason that we thought of the state affairs fund and used it. But since there wasn't enough money to cover it, we of course needed to find other sources. This is the second point.
Third, people should examine what has been done in the past. Over the period of one year, the ratio of confidential to non-confidential portions of the state affairs fund should be about 50-50. Each category accounts for half. During the Kuomintang era, the ratio was sometimes 55 to 45, sometimes 60 to 40, and sometimes 2 to 1--that is, two-thirds confidential and one-third non-confidential, making for a 2 to 1 ratio. Confidential expenditures have always exceeded the non-confidential expenditures.
So we knew that the funds allocated for confidential expenditures would certainly be insufficient. We needed, therefore, to find ways of getting non-confidential expenditure funds for confidential use, as they could neither be retained for future use nor simply diverted from one purpose to another. This is why we had to think of ways to collect receipts.
Fourth, this wasn't the only time we had collected receipts. We did so in 2002--from 2002 to 2006. If we could do so from 2002 to 2006, why didn't DGBAS or the Ministry of Audit correct us and point out that the practice was improper? Why didn't they tell us in 2003 and 2004 that the practices of the previous years were improper? Such practices had been in place for several successive years and the auditing agency also reviewed them without noting any improprieties. It was not until the fifth year that the audit agency said such practices were not permissible. What do you say I can do? If it was not permissible, they should have told us, and our staff would not have obstructed the Ministry of Audit nor would they have adopted such practices.
At the time, after all, as the funds could not be retained for future use or diverted for another purpose, those involved in the accounting said "Never mind. It's O.K. to report expenditures by using private receipts to balance the books. As long as procedurally we in fact have money that can be used, it's all right." Of course we now know this is a flawed procedure, and it is something we have to reevaluate. Things would not be like this, however, if we had not gotten the wrong information that gave us the misimpression that "This way is fine," "This way doesn't matter." Now that we are told "This way is wrong" and "It does matter," we feel particularly regretful and are very sorry. We have to review and change things. Now that we know, we have to change.
I don't think it is fair, however, to accuse us of wrongdoing or corruption because we did something procedurally flawed, or got the wrong information. Of course, what everyone is most concerned about is where the money went, how the money was spent. Was it put into somebody's pocket? By using these receipts, was it put into people's pockets? The prosecutor verified that the NT$12 million did not end up in anyone's pocket, but was spent on secret diplomatic missions.
He classified the other NT$14.8 million worth of receipts as embezzled funds, meaning that the sum was not used for secret diplomatic missions, but diverted into my pocket instead. I said just a minute ago that our expenditures exceeded the funds available. How would it have been possible to embezzle funds? How would it have been possible? The prosecutor has confirmed NT$12 million worth of receipts, but is unwilling to confirm the remaining NT$14.8 million, of which NT$1.49 million worth were my wife's and roughly NT$300,000 were my two children and son-in-law's, thus approximately NT$1.8 million in total. How could five adults possibly spend only NT$1.8 million over the course of five years? Had I wanted to embezzle funds, surely I would have embezzled more. Moreover, one of the receipts was for a total of more than NT$1 million, but we only applied for a partial reimbursement. Had I wanted to embezzle funds, surely it would have made more sense to start by embezzling the full amount. How would I possibly have embezzled NT$1.8 million?
You should know that although NT$1.8 million was a reimbursement for the receipts from the five adults of my family, that sum of money has gone into the national coffers, not a penny went in our pockets. The non-confidential expenditures reimbursed with their receipts were used on public affairs. We have absolutely not put NT$14.8 million into our pockets. Several projects mentioned in the indictment report, for example, the one code-named "F," required US$540,000 per year, or US$1.08 million for two years. We spent US$100,000 per year on mainland pro-democracy activists, i.e. US$200,000 for two years. The prosecutor says these are acceptable. He, however, says there are problems with some other projects, such as UN Taiwan Salute and the southward-route and the northward-route confidential diplomacy, which cost US$3.2 million. They say these could be collected through private donations, confidential expenditures, or money raised by ourselves or through fundraising. I would like to ask you, how could I have solicited donations for the work of diplomacy?
Through fundraising, I could have put the money straight into my own pocket. Why would I have needed to report it? Compared with the trouble of using receipts to embezzle money, I could have simply used the funds on myself. Who would have known? I therefore feel that this type of conclusion is purely guesswork, and is not consistent with the facts. What actually happened was that we mentioned that we needed some money and some friends came to help, for which we are exceedingly grateful. One returns the money as soon as one can, and pays a little later when they cannot. I hadn't known that such a simple matter would cause such problems.
Then how much was left over in the confidential expenditure for 2002 and 2003, respectively? Why wasn't the remaining money used? We all know that diplomatic work may need money at any time. Sometimes money must be prepared a full year before some act of confidential diplomatic work is carried out. There can be no wasting of money, because no one knows when diplomatic work will bear fruit. But we all know that such work requires money that has already been saved and set aside. Therefore, having money in place does not mean it is ready for use at any time. Thus, from 2002 to 2006, a certain amount of money was allocated to expand our diplomatic space in missions quite sensitive.
Preparations were laid over many years in hope that this would succeed. If it could succeed, Taiwan will have a way out and be able to expand its space for diplomacy. This is what the President has to do and what we must do at a time when our diplomatic work is facing great difficulty. Not only does diplomatic work need money. Our money is often spent fruitlessly. But we cannot afford not to do it. Money was kept to do greater diplomatic work. Some say that instead of using the money, I took other people's money. I feel this displays a complete ignorance of our diplomatic work. These people do not know how difficult it is for the President to do diplomatic work for Taiwan, acknowledging this case and denying that case.
All of you are concerned about Mr. "X" of the confidential diplomatic case. I am really worried about his life and property--where he is now and in whose hands. Originally, I told the prosecutor that much of confidential diplomatic work couldn't be spoken of even if one's life were threatened; it should never be spoken of. The prosecutor said likewise that some secrets should be buried with their bearer without ever being spoken of. Many of these things cannot be said, and truly, I cannot reveal them.
I did this for our country's interests, [its] confidentiality, protecting those involved, avoiding diplomatic disputes, and preventing interior disturbances or even political conflicts in countries with which we have diplomatic cooperation. Things like this would not take place in other countries. Things like this happened in Taiwan because of the difficulty of its diplomatic situation. Have they only taken place during my term?
All former presidents encountered the problem of a diplomatic predicament. I believe former President Lee Teng-hui had a true understanding of the situation and was also the most experienced in handling the problem. I respect him and admire him for his achievements. He established several mechanisms, including the Fong Tian Special Project. By putting together all the money that used to be spent separately, he set up a fund that could be used while on the other hand yielding interest. That was a great contribution to the country. Not having taken a single cent, he was very clean, which was widely acclaimed by the people. However, he also knows best about the difficulties encountered when dealing with diplomatic affairs. Oftentimes Taiwan spends money on diplomacy in vain. It is like throwing money into the water. Sometimes it makes ripples, while other times it creates no ripples at all. We got nothing. We were cheated out of our money, and still we dared not make it known to the public. This is the difficulty in our diplomatic doings, and it is also a difficulty facing the [ROC] President.
In the face of China's "three alls" policy, which refers to Beijing's determination to take all of Taiwan's diplomatic allies, block all of Taiwan's international channels, and crush all of Taiwan's international presence, should we wait to be seized without a fight? As the [ROC] President, I need not only to provide you with a secure living environment but also to help you connect with the world. The key to a secure living environment is our national defense, while it takes diplomatic maneuvering to allow our people to participate in the international community. Whether it is national defense or foreign relations, they are both related to diplomacy and require money. We have no other option, because we have a bad neighbor.
I told the prosecutor the awkward situation I faced as President. My predicament was how to help Taiwan join the international community. I had spent a lot of thinking on this front, but I really could not reveal the details of many diplomatic tasks. However, he asked that I tell him, and pledged that he would keep them a secret.
He even said he would seal up all the materials for safekeeping, never opening them and not letting relevant persons be exposed. The investigation report, however, exposes all of the persons involved. How can secrets be kept if things are like this? Even if you just guess, you will guess the right answer. Anyone who understands a little about diplomacy will know what countries or what affairs the relevant persons have connections with when they read the indictment report. Is this appropriate? I really feel ill at ease that so many people are affected.
With regard to this case, I would like to ask you: Should I, as President, have the obligation and responsibility to reveal everything, especially about our diplomatic work over the past five or six years, to the prosecutor? This is what I remain puzzled about despite much thought. Now many individuals have been exposed. Who can protect them? Having brought them so much trouble, I really do not know how to give them an explanation. Fortunately, I did not tell the prosecutor more, otherwise, everything would have been in the indictment report and on the Internet. Is this in the interest of diplomacy? Will it benefit the country?
Naturally, I respect the judiciary. I also respect the prosecutor for exercising his functions and powers in accordance with what he is required. Yet, while I was being questioned, he said he would keep these secrets, would lock them away, and would not let them be exposed. All that was set down on paper, this promise that these people would not be exposed. I tell you these things just for your reference. Is this right? Is this good? I want to apologize to those named in the indictment report due to related cases, because your job, your property, and other things might come under fire or be harmed.
Everyone knows that some people lied regarding the case of Mr. "X" who carried out secret diplomatic missions. Whether these were "white lies" or not, I think an apology is owed to the public. Nevertheless, if the act of lying was done for good reasons and to cover for secret diplomatic missions, maybe the people should consider whether the act is forgivable. Everyone can start thinking from this point--a so-called "conflict of duties." When a conflict between national and personal interest arises, the question of putting national or personal interests first will arise. In this situation, one might make inconsistent, contradictory statements, or dare not speak out because of the need to keep secrets. If this has given a wrong impression to the prosecutors or impacted the fairness of the judicial investigation, I am willing to make an apology.
Regarding high-level confidential diplomatic missions--which are critical to national security and only known to few people on the National Security Council--I have been contemplating whether I should speak out and when I could disclose them. I have been thinking about these questions: If I do not tell prosecutors about them, then should I make them public in front of all my fellow citizens, or should I make a full explanation in court as long as doing so will not harm our national interests? I have been trying my best to serve my country and promote our diplomacy. It is probably difficult for people to really know how painful the current situation is for me. But it is all right. I have to shoulder more responsibilities than anyone else since people elected me as the President. I have to swallow my pain and sorrow and deal with all these misunderstandings. Because I am the President, there is a price to pay and sacrifices to make, and I am willing to do so, and I am glad to do it.
Hence, I would like to conclude with two points. First, my integrity and reputation as a clean and upright person are more important than my life, and the question of whether I will remain in office or resign is too trivial for me to care about. I believe history will vindicate me, and that the judicial process will exonerate me. I have no desire to cling to the presidency, and I will not wait for the verdict in an appeal to the Supreme Court. If I am found guilty of corruption in the Court of First Instance, I will immediately step down.
Second, though it is of no importance for the public to know of the inner struggle caused by conflict between obligations to the nation and to defend my reputation, what I would say is that as President, I deeply love Taiwan, deeply love my country; hence, for the sake of Taiwan's national interests, there are certain sensitive, top-secret diplomatic tasks that I cannot speak of, period. If I am misunderstood and treated unjustly because I can't speak out, I am willing to sacrifice my personal desires for the sake of fulfilling my larger calling."
In closing, members of the press, and my dear fellow compatriots, I welcome your comments and suggestions.
President Chen's responses to questions raised by members of the media.
Ms. Wun Guei-siang (Central News Agency): Mr. President. You just spent quite some time explaining the contents of the indictment report in the case of the state affairs fund. I believe your explanations have helped to clarify certain questions the public has. However, I have two questions for you. With regard to using other people's receipts to apply for reimbursements from the state affairs fund, the prosecutor's indictment has clearly stated that he is not concerned with the usage and final recipient of the money. Rather, the prosecutor thinks that your using other people's receipts to apply for reimbursements from the state affairs fund, i.e., what you have called your "unavoidable expediency," constitutes an "accomplished offense" and is in violation of the Anti-Corruption Act. What is your view on this? Second, the prosecutor also mentioned in the indictment that during the first round of questioning you were asked about the four cases of secret diplomatic missions. If you had left out an explanation for those cases during the first round of questioning, you could also have later on presented a written statement with additional factual information, rather than letting the public repeatedly question the integrity of your family. May I ask, Mr. President, why didn't you give a clear explanation in the first instance about those four suspicious cases?
President Chen: According to what the prosecutor specifically mentioned in the indictment, the act of "fraudulently obtaining money or property under the guise of legal authority" stipulated in the Anti-Corruption Act is an "accomplished offense," and every time Ms. Wu Shu-jen presented a receipt of other persons, who actually paid for the goods, to apply for money as reimbursement from the state affairs fund, this would constitute a crime. Even if expenditures were made thereafter, that would not change the fact that a crime was committed. This is the prosecutor's view. If such a viewpoint is accepted by the court, then I think my explanations today were all made in vain. In other words, using receipts to apply for reimbursements from the state affairs fund constitutes the crime of corruption, no matter whether the money is used on public or private affairs. However, among the many cases mentioned in the indictment, two cases, i.e., the case code-named "F" and the donation to a mainland pro-democracy activist case, involved the largest amount of money, with a total of NT$42 million. Of that amount, NT$12 million was paid for by using receipts. The money was first applied for with receipts and then paid to the recipients. In the prosecutor's view, these two payments should also constitute corruption and an "accomplished offense." Why is it that the prosecutor thinks these two payments do not constitute corruption because they were actually paid to certain public relations company and certain mainland pro-democracy activists? This is contradictory. I don't know which one is correct. There are different standards used within the same indictment. One constitutes corruption; the other does not.
Second, I just mentioned that secret diplomatic missions are best kept secret wherever possible. This is my principle. You see, so many people were hurt after I talked about the missions. Fortunately I didn't talk about all of them. There are still many other cases that I didn't tell the prosecutor about. The prosecutor wanted me to tell him everything the first time. How could I tell him? If possible, I would choose not to tell him anything at all. I could remain silent and refuse to cooperate with the investigation. But I had a great deal of respect for the prosecutor and the judicial system. I believed that he would keep these secrets and not write about them in the indictment; that he would keep these secrets sealed away. In the end, things did not turn out that way. If I had no other choice but to tell these secrets, I would only talk about them under the premise of not harming our national interests. Now judging from the current situation, I really don't dare to talk about them anymore. I just mentioned about my inner struggle between my obligations as an individual and duties as the country's leader. If I really cannot talk about them, and if my talking would affect the nation's image and cause diplomatic disputes, or even affect many of those friends who support Taiwan, then how can I sell out my country for my own benefit and affect our diplomatic work? A president's term is four years, two terms eight years. There will be others serving as president after me. This country and I will still be here then. Can I sell out our country and affect our diplomatic work for my own benefit?
What I mean is, this case is not like other ordinary criminal cases. It involves the constitutional framework, diplomatic work, and many confidential matters. I am not trying to avoid responsibility, and I am not afraid of getting in trouble. My concerns are greater than these. I hope you all will think again. Am I saying the right thing? This country belongs to all of us, not to me alone. Does Taiwan still want to make friends in the international community? Does diplomatic information still need to be kept secret? Or should we expose everything to the light of day? In that case, Taiwan will come to a dead end. Whether I am President or not does not matter. There will be others who can serve in this office. But do we still want to keep diplomatic work as secret? Do we want to make our future path longer and wider, so that we can walk farther? This is something for you to think about.
Ye Ci-cheng (Formosa Television): The First Lady should have been questioned for the second time on November 1. Why did the Office of the President repeatedly delay it such that the prosecutor took it as an invocation of the right to remain silent? Is the First Lady upset about this or does she feel that it is unfair? In addition, it had been arranged that you would be questioned a third time on November 6 and 7. The investigation, however, was closed prior to this round of questioning. How do you view this move by the prosecutor? Do you think it was appropriate? Would the indictment report have read any differently had you been questioned on those two days?
President Chen: I am unaware whether or not the prosecutor desired to question me on November 5 and 6, that is, today and tomorrow. My wife, however, did receive a subpoena from the prosecutor on October 31, informing her that she would be questioned a second time at the presidential residence at 4 p.m. on November 1. After this, my wife sent a fax to the prosecutor to explain that she really did not feel well, and asked that questioning be put off until November 5, today, due to her illness. The main reason for putting off the round is my wife's poor health of late, a thing that is widely known. In particular, after having forced herself to attend the Double Tenth National Day celebration, participate in the ceremony, and accompany me in greeting foreign leaders and their wives, my wife fell ill after two or three consecutive days of activities. After that, she caught a cold and developed a fever. Even more serious, she, who suffers hypotension and whose blood pressure normally measures 80mmHg systolic/50mmHg diastolic, recently recorded a measurement of 130 mmHg systolic.
Therefore, since then, my wife has had to see the doctor almost every day. Doctors have been coming to the presidential residence pretty much on a daily basis to see her. Therefore, it was not a case of refusing to take part in questioning or using her illness as a pretext to purposely postpone a hearing. On the contrary, her health was truly not up to it. In the past, the prosecutor had said that he preferred to visit on Saturdays, Sundays, or after office hours in order to avoid too much disturbance and to keep things confidential. So when he arranged to visit at 4 p.m. on November 1, with so many people coming and going, there was not going to be any confidentiality even if my wife's health had been up to it, which it certainly was not. We felt that it would be better to arrange the questioning for after she had rested for a few days, so as to avoid having to keep asking for permission for leave from questioning. However, there was no response from the prosecutor. Hence, my wife applied for such leave and the case was closed just like that.
As for my part, it is true that I contacted the prosecutor many times through my office to tell him that there was still a lot that I wanted to say and some issues that I hoped to clarify and report on. However, no response was received to this intention, which was conveyed several times through various channels.
Although my wife was still ill and she had not recuperated, she was willing to work with the prosecutor and the schedule he had created for handling the case. Understanding that the prosecutor might have hoped to see the case wrapped up at an early date or within a set time, she did not want her illness to affect the prosecutor's work to wrap up the case. Therefore, she told the prosecutor on her own initiative that she hoped to be able to go in for questioning, despite her poor health, at the prosecutor's convenience. To our surprise, the response we got was the indictment report. If it were true that we had embezzled NT$14.8 million, it would be a serious thing. If one believes that there is no such person as Mr. "X," and wants to know where the money has gone, then shouldn't one ask the party concerned, the accused, so as to give this person a chance to defend him or her self? If one is suspicious that the money has gone into someone's pocket, then shouldn't one also have given the party concerned a chance to explain? It is a fact that the money was withdrawn by virtue of having produced receipts. This, however, does not mean that the money was embezzled. Shouldn't the accused been given a chance to explain whether the money was used in other places--if not in this place, then maybe in that place? What are the rights of the accused? I regret that the accused was not able to make an explanation.
But let us take a look again at the indictment report. Perhaps the prosecutor thinks that even if he had asked, the result would have been the same, and that, therefore, it was better not to ask. If, as the reporter just mentioned, the Anti-Corruption Act states that someone who fraudulently obtains money or property under the guise of legal authority is considered guilty of an accomplished offense, and if one's using receipts or other people's receipts to claim reimbursements from the state affairs fund means one commits the crime of corruption, then naturally there is no need for the prosecutor to ask questions. However, it seems that this is not the case. If you can explain where the money has gone, then it does not constitute corruption. Why was no such opportunity forthcoming? I don't understand it.
Ciou Yan-ling (The Liberty Times): Mr. President, you have just openly proclaimed that, were the trial in the Court of First Instance to conclude with a verdict of guilty, you would be willing to step down. Could you please elaborate on this? Do you mean you would step down were First Lady Wu Shu-jen to be pronounced guilty? Or do you mean that you would resign if any one of the other [three] people indicted were found guilty? And, a follow-up question: The Kuomintang (KMT) staged a large-scale rally this afternoon in the name of fighting corruption, during which KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou demanded that you step down. What are your views on this demand of the opposition party?
President Chen: I have already spoken very clearly. I believe that history will do me justice, and that the judiciary will clear my name. We must respect the judiciary. If the verdict at the court of first instance is "guilty"--if my wife is convicted, then I, too, will be guilty, as the prosecutor sees that I am also involved; this is something I cannot avoid. Therefore, if the judge delivers a verdict of guilty at the Court of First Instance, I will not wait for the result of Court of Third Instance to resign, which means that I will step down before my term officially ends. I have made it very clear. Even though Premier Su has said in the Legislative Yuan that my resignation becomes necessary only after a verdict of guilty at the Court of Third Instance is made public, I do not think that this is necessary.
Next, as for any political disputes or constitutional controversies--and I have talked about judicial matters already--political matters should be dealt with according to the constitutional order and related rules and regulations. My position on this has never changed and, while not everyone will necessarily ask for the same thing, which we respect, I still believe that the correct method is to let everything operate according to the appropriate systems.
(If there are discrepancies between the English and Chinese texts, the Chinese takes precedence.)