However, since the Chung Hsing case has become a legal matter, the justice system should be allowed to operate independently so that it can render a fair judgement.

The decision by the Taiwan High Court Prosecutor's Office to hand the Chung Hsing case over to the Taipei District Prosecutor's Office for re-investigation elicited strong opposition from the PFP. During last week's Judiciary Committee meetings, six PFP legislators showed up and asked questions about the case -- even though none of them were committee members. They obviously had no qualms about intervening in a case under investigation. But this kind of crude intervention won't have any effect on the Taipei District Prosecutor's Office, apart from creating a media circus. The PFP, usually adept at using the media, appears this time to have shot itself in the foot.

`Although the Chung Hsing case was originally triggered by a political dispute, the matter has entered the legal process and thus all concerned parties should wait for the investigation's results to be released.'

The reasons behind the

original exposure of the Chung Hsing case -- and the KMT's subsequent decision not to press the issue -- include both its resentment over losing to the DPP in the presidential election campaign and general political wrangling. This matter should be between the KMT and Soong, but some TAIP and DPP politicians have been particularly zealous about the case, driven either by hatred for Soong, or by more complex political considerations.

Soong was Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) strongest rival and the DPP's greatest political threat in last year's election. This is why the DPP was so optimistic when the KMT brought up Chung Hsing during the campaign -- and why it tried so vigorously to fan the flames. When the prosecutor eventually decided not to indict Soong, the KMT, for political reasons, chose to drop the issue. By contrast, furious members of the DPP attacked the prosecutor, exploring every possible means to ensure a new investigation.

Saying that DPP members or people close to the DPP have a special interest in the Chung Hsing case doesn't mean that the party headquarters has used its power to influence the case. The DPP doesn't have the ability to influence the investigative system -- especially the High Court Prosecutor's Office. It would also be difficult for the ministry of justice to manipulate the investigative process.

In their rashness, however, PFP members have consistently cried persecution, even accusing the DPP and the ministry of justice of behind-the-scenes maneuvering. A PFP legislator said that new evidence in the case was provided by the chairman of the DPP and also hinted that the justice minister is unlawfully involved in the case. This kind of reactive and rash political action has damaged Soong and the PFP far more than even the Chung Hsing case itself.

Though another investigation could very well result in a decision not to indict, rash actions by Soong and PFP legislators have already damaged the party. In questioning the justice minister and High Court Prosecutor-General about the case -- and then having the effrontery to ask Lo to facilitate the process -- the PFP appears to have seriously damaged itself. And as a result, Soong's self-proclaimed commanding position in opinion polls could disappear.

The results of the re-investigation may not differ from the previous decision not to indict. Nevertheless, the revelations about Soong's finances have dealt him a truly lethal blow. Even if he used huge funds totalling hundreds of millions of NT dollars under orders from Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), he never reported back to Lee on how he spent it. When the case was first exposed, he couldn't explain. But only then did he return the money to the KMT.

If he was not exposed, who knows what Soong would have done with the money? Even more serious is the confirmation by prosecutors that Soong has at least NT$580 million in assets. Although such an enormous amount came from various forms of "income" received during his campaign for provincial governor, this practice of appropriating them for personal use, though not illegal, cannot help but raise eyebrows.

Although the Chung Hsing case was originally triggered by a political dispute, the matter has entered the legal process and thus all concerned parties should wait for the investigation's results to be released. The PFP leadership should not use political force to intervene, but should rather ask itself how Soong is going to handle the matter of several hundred million NT dollars. After all, campaign contributions and government subsidies shouldn't end up lining an individual's pockets.

Chiu Hei-yuan is director of the Institute of Sociology of the Academia Sinica.

Translated by Scudder Smith