By Grace Soong
The China Post–Vice President-elect Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) yesterday rebuked a magazine’s report that he was responsible for making executive decisions over the New Year’s musical, which stirred up public concerns due to its exorbitant production cost. The Taipei District Prosecutors Office has yet to summon Wu for questioning.
According to the Next Magazine, former Minister of the Cabinet-level Council for Cultural Affairs (CCA) Sheng Chih-jen (盛治仁) revealed to prosecutors that Wu, the former premier, was the ultimate decision maker who ratified the over NT$200 million in expenses for the Republic of China centenary musical “Dreamers” (夢想家). Wu refuted the report yesterday through a written statement, clarifying that he had only received directional reports from Sheng on how the centenary celebrations would go, but was never involved in any content or executive decision making. Pieced-together Report: Wu The former premier accused Next Magazine of piecing together the report with scattered and fabricated details, including the false timing of Sheng’s report to him and of specific election slogans that had not existed at certain dates mentioned in the magazine article. Next Magazine’s claim that “Sheng reported to Wu in late January and early February of 2010 the entire plan of the centenary celebration, including the ‘Dreamers’ musical, which was to take place on National Day the following year” was not truthful, Wu claims.
According to the former premier, Sheng reported to him on Jan. 15 and March 8 about “the preparation progress of the centenary celebrations” and about “an issue over a human rights park with the Control Yuan.” Both reports were general and more “in principle;” details and specific planning of “Dreamers” was not mentioned, Wu said. Wu has appointed Lai Su-ju (賴素如) as his legal consultant. Sheng’s Clarifications As of yesterday, the Taipei District Prosecutors Office had not yet summoned Wu and is continuing investigation over the “Dreamers” case.
Sheng spoke up yesterday regarding the case, saying that he would “take full legal responsibility.” After clarifying that the date and contents mentioned in the magazine were not correct, Sheng made a point of saying that because he no longer belongs to the political world, “he would make no further comments when it comes to the political aspect of the case.”