so that Ma Ying-jeou, who has just resigned as the party chairman, may be nominated as its presidential candidate in 2008 even if he is convicted on embezzlement charges in first and second trials. Thus, indications are that leaders of the largest opposition party are beginning to show deep concern about Ma's legal problem. Indeed, such worry is definitely justified. Prosecutor Chen Jui-jen pointed out that on November 14 last year when Ma was first interrogated about the nature of his "special fund" he replied that the expenses, which are not part of his salary, should all be defrayed for public purposes.
It was on Feb. 7, 2007 when he was questioned for the third time that he changed his mind, saying that in his subjective point of view he believed half of the "special fund" is "private" not "public" money as it does not require receipts.
But, the court cast doubt on the credibility of Ma's third statement, considering it as a familiar attempt by the accused to overturn their more truthful confessions made at the first moment than later to evade responsibility. As a result, the prosecutors decided to indict Ma on the grounds that he knowingly misused public funds for private affairs. Hence, the court used Ma's words against Ma.
Although, legally speaking, Ma appears to have difficulty escaping from the snare laid by himself, few in Taiwan, regardless of their political colors, would believe that he is a corrupt person. Now, the questions are: Can Ma be cleared through court proceedings? and how? Answers to these questions not only profoundly affect Ma personally but also have grave consequences in upholding moral values in politics in Taiwan.
It is universally acknowledged that the court should ideally operate on three principles: legality, justification and understanding. While Ma has little chance to be exonerated on the legal basis, he deserves to be examined in the light of justification and understanding, which fall within the realm of the "free exercise of conscience" by judges.
Commenting on the indictment of Ma, Prosecutor Chen Jui-jen described Ma's behavior as one of "stealing goods without wearing hand gloves." It is indeed downright stupid for Ma to knowingly embezzle public funds by remitting the money directly to his personal bank account and even reflect the balance in his income tax declaration in such a way that he is easily caught red-handed by judicial authorities while many of his government colleagues are smart enough to draw cash or checks and spend all the money without a trace.
But, is Ma, an outstanding graduate of the Harvard Law School with a distinguished political career, really that stupid? One of the more plausible explanations of his seeming stupidity is that he honestly believed he did nothing wrong and, therefore, did not take any precautions. This judgment should be amply affirmed by Ma's well-known long standing record of integrity as the holder of party and government offices and the ambiguous and conflicting nature of the regulations concerning the "special fund."
As a matter of fact, several former high-level government officials have openly stated that they were misled by accounting and auditing officials as well as established practices to assume that half of the "special fund" that does not need receipts may be considered part of their salary. Among the officials admitting to their misunderstanding of the law is Lung Ying-tai, a former director of the Bureau of Culture of the Taipei City Government, who urged Ma to seek the presidency in 2008 despite being indicted so as to offer voters a choice of clean politics.
