Ma Ying-Jeou’s Statement

Ma Ying-Jeou’s Statement

November 30, 2007

【Defense given in Court】

Thank you, Your Honor (referring to the 3-member panel). I would like to make it clear in this court of law that I have not committed any crime. I have never had the intent nor the deeds of crime.

There are currently nine lawsuits concerning the use of discretionary funds that require receipts for reimbursement. The other eight defendants, Hsu Tain-tsair, Hsu Yang-ming, Annette Lu, Frank Hsieh, Yu Shyi-kun, Su Tseng Chang, Mark Chen, and Ong Yueh-sheng, were not indicted for their use of the discretionary funds that require receipts for reimbursement. I was the only one indicted thanks to the different standards adopted by the prosecution. While I was acquitted by the Taipei District Court, the prosecution, regrettably, deliberately ignored the opinions of the Ministry of Justice, the Tainan District Prosecutors’ Office, and Taipei District Court, refused to adopt universal standards in dealing with discretionary find cases, and insisted on filing for an appeal at the expense of vast judicial and social resources.

I have stated repeatedly that reimbursement of my discretionary fund were always processed by the cashiers every month. The cashiers would notify the secretaries of my office and give instructions on when and how to collect the funds on a regular basis. I was never notified of any problem regarding my discretionary fund by any cashier, accountant, or auditor. Those who were in charge of reimbursement and stood witness in court, including the cashiers Liu Jin-jung, Wu Li-ru, and Zhao Xiao-jing, the secretaries Fang Hui-zhong, Sun Li-zhu, and Sun Zhen-ni, unanimously proved the aforementioned facts in court. All the staff involved in the process were acting by the book and never made any mistakes. How could it have been possible for me to take advantage of their non-existent “mistake” every month and put the funds in my own pocket?

Besides, even if the discretionary funds that require receipts for reimbursement must be used in public expenditures only, I believe that the charitable donations I made should qualify as “public expenditures.” During my eight-year term as Taipei Mayor, I gave away NT$ 68.09 million in total to charity and other public courses. The amount is four times more than the discretionary fund reimbursed with receipts as recorded in the indictment (NT$ 15.3 million). I did not even violate the administrative procedure with regard to the use of the discretionary funds that require receipts for reimbursement, how could I have violated the Criminal Code and committed corruption?

It seems to me that the Prosecutor General’s Office adopted different standards in its investigation of discretionary fund cases involving other political heavyweights. In those cases, treating friends to meals at fancy restaurants and buying expensive presents for friends were automatically qualified as “public expenditures” by the prosecutors, who did not even bother to find out the identities of those “friends” or if the “public expenditures” had anything to do with public affairs. In the prosecution’s opinion, any expenditure made by those political figures was, without a doubt, public expenditure. Even payments made with the credit card of a third party could qualify as public expenditures that could be reimbursed with the discretionary fund. The prosecution did not even bother to indict political figures who used other people’s receipts for reimbursement, which definitely constitutes forgery and corruption. It is sheer absurdity that the prosecutors in my case deliberately adopted paradoxical and incoherent standards simply for the sake of indicting me, for example when they decided that my charitable donations should not qualify as public expenditure.

The prosecutors in my case refused to consider what the discretionary fund controversy was all about. Was it about defining a criminal act or correcting a long-existing flaw in the system? Apparently the prosecutors preferred to leave me holding the bag of legal issues incurred by the flawed design of the discretionary fund system and the controversies surrounding the use of discretionary fund. In order to indict me, the prosecutors deliberately ignored the fact that the standard reimbursement procedure followed by cashiers and accountants was also followed by government officials including me. In order to indict me, the prosecutors showed me official papers I had never seen before and used them as evidence of my knowledge that the discretionary fund reimbursed with receipts must be used in public expenditures only. In order to indict me, the prosecutors deliberately turned a deaf ear to the Ministry of Justice’s definition of the discretionary fund as a “substantive subsidy for top executives” and the opinions of other government agencies in my favor. In order to indict me, the prosecutors deliberately misinterpreted my replies during the first session at the prosecutorial inquiry and dismissed testimonies in my favor. In order to indict me, the prosecutors cited my media interview “after” the case had broken out last year and gave a false interpretation of my subjective recognition of the use of the discretionary fund.

I have to say with great pain and sorrow that the prosecution’s decisions to indict and appeal were based on ill intentions instead of logic. My case is a typical example of selective investigation. I appeal to you to sustain the original ruling and reject the appeal of the prosecution.

Attachment : none