Sun, Dec 07, 2003 page8

• Editorial: Soong must come clean to public

  • • 
    • 
    • 

  The Taipei District Prosecutors' Office Friday questioned People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) for almost six hours over his role in the Chung Hsing Bills Finance case (興票案). We will have to wait, however, for a decision by prosecutors as to whether they will reopen the case, which was closed when the prosecutors' office decided not to prosecute Soong in January 2001.

  During a press conference after he was questioned, Soong on the one hand passed the buck to former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and on the other hand claimed that he is not clear about the details of the case because his finances have always been managed by his sister-in-law Chen Pi-yun (陳碧雲). He also continued to challenge Lee, who was the chairman of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) during Soong's term as the party's secretary-general, to a confrontation in court.

  In other words, Soong's latest explanation of the case was the same old tune that he has been playing for the past three years, although it was perhaps a bit more dramatic this time. But the world still hasn't gotten any clear answers.

  Today, Soong is a vice presidential candidate, nominated by the KMT and the PFP. It is necessary for him to clarify his role in the case, instead of repeatedly telling us how deeply his family members have suffered from the accusations against him. We can understand the pain of the Soong family over the past few years, but if Soong quickly clears up all doubts about the case, maybe the suffering of his family members can end sooner.

  People have been wondering why a donation of NT$100 million from Chen You-hao (陳由豪), a former chairman of the Tuntex Group, to the KMT in October 1997, was divided into three sums and transferred to Soong's bank account, Chen's bank account and the US bank account of Soong's son's, Allen Soong (宋鎮遠). Why did the sum transferred to Allen Soong come from 20 different dummy accounts?

  Furthermore, when the scandal first broke, James Soong said that none of his family members owned any property in Hawaii. It was then discovered that his son owned five houses in the US, and that he already owned these houses when he was a student at the University of California at Berkeley. In response to questions from the media, Allen Soong said the money was a gift from his parents, while his wife later said that Allen Soong had earned the money himself. Why all the discrepancies and contradictions?

  Third, why didn't James Soong return to the KMT the NT$240 million that was in his bank account when he discontinued his KMT membership in July 1999? Why did he wait until prosecutors requested that the Ministry of Finance turn over materials from an audit of his accounts on December 26 that year?

  Only days later did Soong hurriedly deposit the money with the Taipei District Prosecutors' Office, where the money remains to this day. What are his reasons for such behavior, which is clearly a matter of criminal misappropriation?

  Frankly speaking, the burden to prove whether Lee authorized Soong to set up accounts for the KMT secretary-general at the Bank of Taipei and Chung Hsing Bills Finance should rest with Soong. Lee has already unambiguously told prosecutors that he never issued such an authorization to Soong.

  If Lee has his facts mixed up, the KMT, which today fully supports Soong, should be able to produce from its archives concrete evidence in support of Soong.

  The issue that concerns voters is the question of Soong's ethics and integrity, not that the KMT has withdrawn its accusations against Soong or that the court has decided not to prosecute. The best thing Soong could do would be to start from the beginning and provide explanations for every issue that the public wants clarified.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    First person arrested as Danjiang Bridge opens

  • 2

    TSMC shares stumble on report, but losses minor

  • 3

    Navy needs 12 subs for modern fleet: CSBC head

  • 4

    HIMARS to be deployed to islands

  • 5

    Police identify man who engaged in indecency at park