Stop covering for Yen Ching-piao

Home Editorials Mon, Feb 07, 2022 page8 Stop covering for Yen Ching-piao By Chin Heng-wei 金恒煒 A re-election is reportedly to be held for the board of Dajia Jenn Lann Temple (大甲鎮瀾宮) in Taichung’s Dajia District (大甲), although few details are available. That a board re-election for a legal entity such as a temple is shrouded in mystery, with the secrecy even extending to something as fundamental as the temple’s charter, is deeply suspicious, leaving some people to presume that there is something dishonest going on. Former Non-Partisan Solidarity Union legislator Yen Ching-piao (顏清標), who allegedly has links to the criminal underworld, has been the temple’s chairman for more than two decades. Whether he would continue in the job, and how he would indefinitely cling to such a lucrative position, would largely depend on the “perpetual board members” he holds sway over. Yen’s grip on the temple is not news, and there had seemed to be little that anybody could do about it. Fortunately, the legislative recall and subsequent by-election in Taichung’s second electoral district has forced people to look more closely at the situation. It has refocused minds on questions such as how Yen came to be temple chairman and how he has been able to use the organization as his personal wallet. It is up to the government to investigate these matters. During the by-election campaign, Yi Chin-jung (易錦隆), a local community representative on the temple’s management committee, brought up a raft of questions on Yen’s role. The first of these concerned the regulation in the temple’s charter that board members must have their household registration in Taichung’s Dajia, Houli (后里), Daan (大安) or Waipu (外埔) districts, and how Yen has long been registered in Shalu District (沙鹿) and was registered there in 1999 when he first became chairman. He now resides in Dajia, but he only moved there last year, so his holding the chairmanship clearly runs counter to the regulations of the charter. Another question raised by Yi concerned how Yen had revised the charter to allow for the addition of four board members that he had himself appointed. There is little point in asking the Taichung Civil Affairs Bureau to investigate how Yen was elected as temple chairman. When asked by reporters, Deputy Minister of the Interior Chen Tsung-yen (陳宗彥) told them to refer to the temple’s charter if they wanted to find out whether Yen’s role as chairman was legitimate, adding that the Taipei City Council had asked for a copy of the temple’s charter from the city government, but the city government declined to provide it. After the bureau rebuffed Yi’s request, the central government got involved, and Taichung Civil Affairs Bureau Director Wu Shih-wei (吳世瑋) called a news conference, telling the media that the charter does not clearly state a residency requirement. This was followed by a barrage of questions about what the charter does say on the matter. Wu responded by citing Article 18 of the Freedom of Government Information Act (政府資訊公開法), which states that information about trade secrets or business operations of a person, legal person or group can be withheld. That is just plain claptrap. The act does have a section titled “Restrictions on Publication of Government Information,” of which Article 18 is a major part, but Clause 3 of that article says that certain documents “can be made available to the public or be provided if deemed necessary to the public interest,” and Clause 9 says that documents “necessary for the public interest” can be made available. Of course, the charter of the Dajia Jenn Lann Temple lies within what is “necessary to the public interest.” News reports said that on the day of the Jan. 9 Taichung by-election, Yen did not turn out to vote, and many assumed he was in the hospital and unable to vote. It was later reported that, knowing that the temple was to hold a chairperson election, Yen transferred his household registration to Dajia District in May last year. If the temple’s charter does not specify that a person must reside in a given district to qualify as chair, why would Yen have made the unnecessary move to Dajia, especially as it meant moving his household registration from his family’s traditional stronghold and waiving the right to vote in his son’s by-election? Could Yen be that stupid? The first error was for Wu to cite that particular clause, apparently without thinking it through; the second was for Yen to have transferred his household registration when he did. The combination of these mistakes shows that the Taichung City Government was covering up for the Yen family. To a degree, the point is moot. Yen is not qualified to be a board member of Dajia Jenn Lann Temple, or play a supervisory role, let alone be the temple chairman. Article 42 of the Foundations Act (財團法人法) states that no person “shall be appointed as the chairperson, alternate chairperson or a supervisor of a public-endowed foundation” if they have “been rendered with a final judgement of guilty for committing an offense under the Statute for Prevention of Organizational Crimes,” and if appointed, they must be removed from office. In 1987, Yen was imprisoned for three years for a conviction due to links with organized crime, links which he has admitted to in media interviews. In the end, it does not really matter what the temple charter says: The city government can no longer cover up for the Yen family. The only thing now is for Yen to be removed from office. Chin Heng-wei is a political commentator. Translated by Paul Cooper