Seven Years, Six Prime Ministers

Seven Years, Six Prime Ministers
China Times editorial
translated by Bevin Chu
May 15, 2007

After following the headlines and assembling the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle, the reason Prime Minister Su abruptly resigned has become clear. It was not that Su wanted to help Chen arrange a new strategic scenario. It was that Chen wanted to organize a "wartime cabinet" as quickly as possible. If Su had insisted on remaining premier, he would have become an obstacle in Chen's way. But if Su's presence disturbed Chen and Frank Hsieh so much, what kind of premier can Chang Chun-hsiung be?

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been in power for seven years. Accounts of how one prime minister after another left office could fill volumes. Most provocative is the fact that besides Tang Fei, the very first prime minister appointed by Chen Shui-bian, who resigned over Chen's order to halt construction on the Number Four Nuclear Plant, every prime minister has been replaced in accordance with the requirements of power struggles. The offices of the prime minister, the party chairman, and the secretary general of the presidential office have become seats in a game of musical chairs. Members of the nomenklatura who have been anointed the "princes" of the party have been swapping places. This does not mean that Chen Shui-bian is a modern day Machiavelli, but that the status of these offices have been thoroughly debased.

Besides Chen Shui-bian, nearly all of the DPP's princes have had their turn as prime minister, including Chang Chun-hsiung, who was just appointed prime minister for the second time. What is interesting is that none of these princes received much support during their terms of office. Instead they have been victims caught in the crossfire between the president and the legislature, rapidly eroding whatever prestige or charisma they might once have enjoyed.

Think back to the euphoria when Frank Hsieh resigned as mayor of Kaohsiung in order to serve as prime minister. One year later, when Su replaced Hsieh, compare the dramatically altered status of the two rivals. Su's popularity ratings were once so low he was almost omitted from the list of "potential successors." Compare that to Hsieh's desolation and humble posture as he was pushed to the margins of power. Who would have guessed that a year later their situations would be reversed? That Su Tseng-chang, despite his advantages as prime minister, would see his popularity ratings plummet? That Frank Hsieh, despite his low popularity ratings, would climb out of his hole, and go from someone with nothing to Green Camp presidential candidate? As far as Su and Hsieh are concerned, assuming the position of prime minister did not allow them to get closer to the presidency, it merely pushed them farther away.

In other words, under Chen Shui-bian's reign, assuming the duties of prime minister has become a kind of Faustian bargain. On the one hand, the prime minister enjoys enormous resources, making it difficult to resist the seduction of the office. But everyone who has assumed the position of prime minister has been abused and devalued. For the past seven years, the reality of a ruling minority in the legislature has never changed. Chen Shui-bian, the real wielder of power, has never given back any of the power he illegally usurped from the prime minister. Add to this a media which seizes upon every opportunity to play up the issue, and you have a situation in which the office of Prime Minister of the Republic of China is the swiftest means of destroying the future of Taiwan's political elite.

Few worry about the fact that according to the constitution the prime minister and not the president is the nation's highest executive, and that according to the constitution he must answer to the legislature. If Su Tseng-chang should resign, he should resign over the five month old deadlock in the legislature over the general budget. He should not resign to help Chen Shui-bian prepare a new strategic scenario. The problem is that everyone is eager to participate in this game of musical chairs. Nobody cares about constitutionalism and the rule of law.

In other words, changing prime ministers six times in seven years has never been about anything but power. The least important consideration is the continuity of policy. The one question we most want to ask is: If Chang Chun-hsiung is returning, does that mean that his "8100, Taiwan Starts Moving Economic Stimulus Plan" is going to be resurrected? Members of Su's cabinet are busy packing and leaving. Su had just kicked off his "Great Investments, Great Warmth" plan. Is all activity about to cease in light of the change in prime ministers? Is everything going to be treated as if it never happened?

Six prime ministers in seven years, like a carousel lantern going around and around, up and down, all the while changing teams. Each and every one promoting his own master plan. Each and every one offering matching slogans. Cabinet members no sooner learn the ropes, than they are forced out of office by regime change. Presidents of the five yuan and ministers seem to be "just passing through." Every prime minister upon arrival declares that he will "explore new possibilities." Every prime minister upon departure declares that he has "other plans in life." No one shoulders any responsibility for the fact that policies and plans are endlessly undermined and overturned. When the replacement of prime ministers is treated as child's play, how can Taiwan's competitiveness not plummet year after year, until it is trailing the mainland's? When everyone pays attention only to power struggles between Chen and Hsieh, who really cares about such matters?

Original Chinese below:

中國時報 　
2007.05.15
七年六閣揆，有誰在乎政策賡續的成本？
中時社論

隨著新聞幕後一塊塊拼圖的重組，蘇揆突然請辭的緣由已大致明朗。事實真相當然不是蘇要讓扁「展布」什麼「新局」，而是扁謝想要盡快共組「選戰內閣」，蘇若還要留任閣揆，就成了攔路的石頭了！而有趣的地方也就在這裡：如果蘇的存在讓扁謝兩人感到礙眼，那麼張俊雄又能成為怎樣的閣揆呢？

民進黨執政的七年來，閣揆的「下台學」已經可以寫一本厚厚的專書了。而最耐人尋味的地方也就在於，除了首任的唐飛是為了反對核四停建的政策而負責下台外，之後所有的閣揆都是為了因應權力布局需要而替換。這期間，閣揆、黨主席與總統府秘書長三個職位，彷彿是在一個三角棋盤上的三顆棋子輪流對換，幾個被封為「天王」的執政黨精英，就在這幾個位置上挪來挪去，這般頻繁的輪轉，並未凸顯出陳水扁操作權位的手法有多高明，倒是同時把三個位置都做小了！

或者講得更直接一點，民進黨檯面上的天王級的菁英，除了陳水扁以外，幾乎都輪過一次閣揆，甚至此刻又輪回到了張俊雄。而有趣的是這幾位天王竟沒有一個在閣揆任內獲得充分養望，反而都在立院與總統的相互牽制困局中，迅速挫磨掉原有的聲望與人氣。

遙想當年，謝長廷由港都轉進行政院之際，是何等的意氣風發！待一年後蘇上謝下，兩人懸殊的人氣指數，又豈是今日所能比擬？以當時蘇的氣勢，就差沒被點名為「準接班人」，而相對照的則是謝的落寞與低調，幾近被擠到權力邊緣徘徊。一年之後誰又能預料竟然形勢互易，占有閣揆優勢的蘇貞昌，竟在人氣聲望上一路下挫，反倒是氣勢低檔的謝長廷逆勢崛起，從一無所有一躍而為綠營總統候選人。對蘇謝兩人而言，接任閣揆並沒讓他們距離總統大位更近，反而是被推得更遠。

換言之，在陳水扁的操作下，閣揆一職彷彿成了某種「浮士德的交易」。一方面閣揆所享有的龐大資源，讓所有人都很難抗拒這個職位的誘惑，但不論是誰接任了閣揆，卻也都擺脫不了被糟蹋而迅速貶值的宿命。過去七年，立院「朝小野大」的情勢沒一天變過，位居幕後的陳總統也從未真正下放過權力，加上相關媒體的見縫插針，「閣揆」在中華民國的體制中，竟成為摧毀政治菁英最快速的位置。

談到這裡，似乎很少人還會驚覺，在現行憲政體制上，行政院長一直都是政府最高的行政首長，在體制上也一直都應要向立法院負責。換言之衡情論理，此際就算蘇貞昌該當下台，為的也該是年度預算被卡在立院數月之久不得動彈而下台，而不該是為了成全陳水扁「展布新局」而下台。問題是，大伙上上下下，卻沒一個人願意要從這個角度思考。

也就是說，七年替換六個閣揆，永遠是權力邏輯凌駕一切，選舉考量蓋過其它，最不受重視的反而是政策的賡續。我們在此刻還真想直接了當的問一句：如果要換張俊雄上台，是不是說他當年所大力推動的「八一○○，全民啟動」又要大復活了？而蘇的核心團隊陸續打包走人，是不是他才剛開始推動的「大投資、大溫暖」計畫，就此偃旗息鼓，當「一切全都沒發生過」？

七年不到，六位閣揆像是走馬燈般的上上下下，在此同時也換了六組團隊，先後推出過六套施政大計畫，也都搭配著六句華麗的施政口號。許多閣員對部務才剛上手，就被迫在改組中倉卒下台，院長部長彷彿都只是「到此一遊」一樣。風光上台的時候都說要「開創新局」，狼狽下台的時候也都說另有「生涯規畫」，卻沒有那個人需要對政策規畫不斷被顛覆翻轉擔負過任何責任。這般地視閣揆替換形同兒戲，試問台灣的競爭力排名，怎麼不會年年下滑，甚至還被大陸給趕了過去？問題是當大家如今都只注意扁謝怎麼玩權力平衡，有誰還會真在乎這些呢！