By Chris Wang / Staff reporter
Wed, Oct 19, 2011 - Page 1
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) vice presidential candidate Su Jia-chyuan (蘇嘉全) yesterday said that he would donate his farmland and the farmhouse on which it stands to a township office to end months of controversy surrounding the assets, which has clouded the DPP’s presidential campaign.
“Despite the fact that the farmhouse has been inspected twice by the authorities in the past few weeks and has been declared legal, I have decided to donate the house and the property to Changjhih Township (長治) in Pingtung County,” Su told a press conference at DPP headquarters in Taipei.
The decision was made to end “irrational” public discussions that have “distorted and obscured an opportunity to formulate policy on farmhouse regulation across the nation,” Su said.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Chiu Yi (邱毅) had launched a series of attacks on Su and his family over the farmhouse, claiming it was constructed illegally. He has also made other allegations of misconduct against them in the past month.
The controversy shifted attention away from DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) 11-day campaign trip up the west coast, which concluded on Sunday.
Su said people should their attention back to public policy because the Jan. 14 presidential election is “what really matters.”
The 54-year-old pledged to hold himself and his family to the highest moral standards, adding that they would move out of the house as soon as possible and would also disclose their personal assets.
However, there should not be double standards on justice and mudslinging should not be tolerated in a country under the rule of law, he said.
Su said he had authorized lawyer Kao Yung-cheng (高涌誠) to handle the donation and would sue anyone who used smear tactics.
Kao said he had contacted the Changjhih Township Office, adding that the office had not decided how to deal with the farmhouse, but the property could be transformed into an agricultural park.
Speaking at an afternoon campaign stop in Yilan, Tsai said she respected Su’s decision, adding that she was not concerned whether it would help the campaign.
Prior to Su’s announcement, Tsai told reporters that the DPP’s position on the controversy was clear: “We think that the issue should be dealt with according to the law, and if the public thinks that [the farmhouse] reflects a systematic problem — which I think it does — then we should seek a total solution.”
The non-stop discussions on the farmhouse controversy have left the presidential campaign “out of focus” and “meaningless,” she said, adding that “the campaign strategy does nog benefit Taiwan’s social and democratic development.”
DPP spokesperson Lin Chun-hsien (林俊憲) said President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) re-election campaign was using a mudslinging strategy, which he claimed used “social perceptions” rather than evidence to launch the attack on Su.
The KMT’s argument was inconsistent when it described Su’s NT$9 million (US$299,000) farmhouse as a “luxurious mansion,” but turned a blind eye to many plush farmhouses and luxurious mansions, most of which are worth hundreds of millions dollars, owned by KMT and government officials, Lin said.
Responding to Su’s announcement, Chiu said the move was “ridiculous.”
“The thief who failed to act for more than a month has finally admitted his crime,” Chiu said, adding that donating the money did not make the crime any less serious.
Meanwhile, Council of Agriculture Minister Chen Wu-hsiung (陳武雄) said it was Su’s right to donate his farmhouse, but that the farmhouse should continue to be used for agricultural purposes.
“By definition, a farmhouse is an inseparable facility for agricultural operation and so the township office should not use the farmhouse for other purposes,” he said.
KMT spokesperson Lai Su-ju (賴素如) said donating the farmhouse did not legalize its status and that Su still owed the public an explanation about the issue.
“We respect Su’s personal choice to donate the farmhouse. However, his move does not legitimize the status of the farmhouse and his farmland, and the problems will not disappear as a result,” she said.
She also urged the Pingtung County Government to say why it approved Su’s farmhouse despite the irrelevant decorations, including sculptures and little bridges.
“The decorations are clearly irrelevant to agricultural operation. If Su’s farmhouse is legal, does it mean that other people can build farmhouses based on the design of Su’s farmhouse?” she said.
Additional reporting by Mo Yan-chih and CNA