Neither Wrong the Innocent, Nor Abet the Guilty: Consensus Between Three Academic Leaders and Justice Ministry

Neither Wrong the Innocent, Nor Abet the Guilty: Consensus Between Three Academic Leaders and Justice Ministry

United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 8, 2012

A  SUMMARY

A dozen or so professors are suspected of falsely reporting expenses. Prosecutors have indicted them on charges of corruption. National Science Council President Chu Ching-yi, Academia Sinica President Wong Chi-huey, and Education Minister Jiang Wei-ning have issued a joint statement, expressing concern and making an appeal. The two sides appear to be diametrically opposed and at a standoff.

＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊

See full text of the editorial below

A dozen or so professors are suspected of falsely reporting expenses. Prosecutors have indicted them on charges of corruption. National Science Council President Chu Ching-yi, Academia Sinica President Wong Chi-huey, and Education Minister Jiang Wei-ning have issued a joint statement, expressing concern and making an appeal. The two sides appear to be diametrically opposed and at a standoff.

But we see no fundamental difference between the two sides. Zhu, Weng, and Chiang have long advocated cracking down on corruption while avoiding malicious prosecution. The Ministry of Justice says that it is making distinctions between minor and major offenses. It says it is letting smaller fish go while going after corruption. The public has a very different perception. As they see it, the three chiefs from academia are merely covering up the mistakes of these professors. As they see it, the prosecutors are merely persecuting the innocent. These impressions, however, do not necessarily reflect the truth or the whole picture.

The three chiefs from academia began by comparing two categories of false reporting, which they termed Category A and Category B. Under Category A, "A professor uses false invoices and pockets the money, or else uses the money to purchase personal items having nothing to do with the research project. Examples include designer bags and refrigerators for their homes. Such cases must be turned over to the authorities, who should exercise no leniency."

Under Category B, "A professor uses false invoices to purchase other kinds of research equipment. One example would be using an invoice for three toner cartridges to purchase a computer screen. Not one dime went into private pockets. The Anti-corruption Statute is not aimed at cases such as this."

The three chiefs from academia said "Different categories of false invoices call for different attitudes."

Actually, the prosecution took this into account when leveling their indictments. They apparently subscribe to the same policy. If public funds have not entered private pockets, depending on the seriousness of the offense, they may choose not to prosecute. They may charge them with forgery, a Category B offense. Other categories, such as purchasing one thing while reporting another, will also be dealt with leniently. But if the accused colluded with the vendor to pad the invoice and pocketed the difference, that will be treated harshly. That would be a Category C offense. Abusing the authority of one's office to embezzle and pocket public funds is an even worse form of corruption. That would be a Category A offense. The vast majority of offenses are Category D offenses. These the prosecution chose to overlook from the very outset. It either chose not to prosecute, or dropped the cases midstream. The prosecution does have a "different cases, different attitudes" policy.

The dispute between the three chiefs from academia and the Justice Ministry is merely over the wording of "Neither wrong the innocent, nor abet the guilty." Each side has its own job description. Each side has its own perspective. The three chiefs from academia may stress "not wronging the innocent." The Justice Ministry stress "not abetting the guilty." Each side has its own take on the matter. This is hardly surprising.

But the controversy involves an unshakeable core principle. Under existing laws, if a public university professor is considered a civil servant and he pockets public funds, he can be prosecuted for corruption. That is why the three chiefs from academia agree that offending public university professors would fall under Category A offenders. They "should unquestionably be handed over to the authorities for prosecution according to the law. They must not be treated leniently." This is what the Justice Ministry refers to as "no room for ambiguity." Both sides agree about the core principle. Therefore, the controversy over right and wrong is already half-solved.

What concerns the public is that the prosecution should not prosecute Category B and Category D offenses as embezzlement, because they involve a grey area. Neither should the three chiefs from academia petition for those accused of Category A and Category C offenses. .

Many individuals have been indicted for these offenses. But each case is an individual case. These are not indictments of educators, academics, and professors, per se.

Prosecuting illegal activities has nothing to with the educators as such. Nor is it right to associate Category A suspects with "distinguished researchers." After all, even a distinguished President of the Republic was involved in corruption, he should be prosecuted according to the law. How can professors be exempt?

From the beginning to the present, these cases seem to be the result of long historical quandary. At first, for the sake of conveniences, professors began to develop Category B and Category D cases. But later on, they began to develop into Category A offenses involving embezzlement. Some even committed Category C offenses involving collusion. One reason for this development was that the suspects didn’t think that they might get caught and they took their chance. Another reason is a systemic lack of accountability. The prosecution is merely restoring long-term accountability to the system. This could be seen as a belated attempt to restore accountability to academia as a whole.

The three chiefs from academia have addressed Category B and Category D offenses. They do not want the public thinking they are condoning Category A and Category C offenses. By contrast, if the prosecution cites Category B and Category D offenses when prosecuting corruption, it will generate chaos. It will undermine its credibility. Therefore, the three chiefs from academia, the prosecution, and the public must reach a clear consensus, namely, "different cases, different attitudes."

We believe the differences between the four types of offenses must be made clear. This will not "undermine morale in academia." It will clear the air. It will exonerate academics. It will enhance their dignity and honor.

(Courtesy of United Daily News)
 

Attachment : none