A Lesson for Ma Ying-jeou: A True Leader Does Not Hide behind a Maginot Line

A Lesson for Ma Ying-jeou: A True Leader Does Not Hide behind a Maginot Line
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 2, 2008

On June 9, 20 days after President Ma took office, the United Daily News published an editorial entitled: Complementary rule: Joint Governance: Redefine the "Dual-Leadership System."

Today, President Ma's "retreat to the second line" has become a topic of discussion. Ma Ying-jeou has "retreated to the second line," and drawn a clear line of distinction between himself and the Executive Yuan. He has also reiterated that he "absolutely will not assume the party chairmanship," and drawn a clear line of distinction between himself and the KMT. Doesn't this scenario remind you of a painter who has painted himself into a corner?

According to a poll conducted by the Research, Development and Evaluation Commission (RDEC), President Ma's approval rating now stands at a mere 48 percent. His disapproval rating now stands at a whopping 38 percent. One reason is that the new leader the public was hoping for failed to appear. Everyone is wondering, "Where the hell is Ma Ying-jeou?"

During direct presidential elections, the public tends to have high hopes for a new leader. The new leader must be someone willing to stand on the front lines. This was especially true of the direct presidential election in 2008.

A true leader stands on the front line. He sets the nation's direction, bears the nation's burdens, and offers the nation hope. Ma Ying-jeou, alas, has done just the opposite. He has promptly retreated to the second line. This "President has vanished" phenomenon has had a devastating impact on public morale.

Ma's "retreat to the second line" is rooted in the "dual-leadership system." But even for France's Fifth Republic, the source of the dual-leadership system, the President and the ruling majority in Parliament belong to the same party. The President has no need to "retreat to the second line." President Ma and the ruling majority in the Legislative Yuan both belong to the KMT. The dual-leadership system must not be so narrowly defined that the president may only deal with "cross-strait, international diplomacy, and national defense" issues. The President must concern himself with more than fulfilling campaign promises. To define the dual-leadership system this way distorts its meaning. It represents the mindset of legal hacks and slaves to the law. The President does not always need to make a public appearance. For example, he does not always need to show up at the site of a natural disaster. But he must always pay attention to policy developments. He must, for example, telephone the Premier about disaster relief measures. The distance between the "front line" and the "second-line" has to be more than just the distance between the President's position and the Premier's position during a photo op.

Take the Chuang Kuo-rong incident for example. President Ma and Premier Liu could have discussed the matter and recommended that the Ministry of Education respond to the National Chengchi University in a manner consistent with the requirements of law, logic, and human feelings. The problem could have been resolved appropriately. The President should not have publicly criticized the Teacher Evaluation Committee for allegedly "exacting a punishment disproportionate to the crime." Has the President retreated to the second line relative to the Executive Yuan, only to advance to the front line by directly interfering with campus affairs?

Relations between President Ma and the Executive Yuan, and relations between President Ma and the KMT boil down to: 1. Connections 2. Distinctions Connections are indispensable. Without connections the President has no right to comment on whether rural elementary schools ought to be merged. Without connections, all he can do is act as a figurehead. Obviously this is untenable. Distinctions are essential as well. But one must not cite distinctions to "retreat to the second line," to "refuse the party chairmanship," or to "sever all connections" and shirk one's duties.

The public is wondering, "Where is Ma Ying-jeou?" The public is saying, "Our leader has vanished." That's because Ma Ying-jeou has failed to establish the necessary connections between the President and the Executive Yuan, and the President and the ruling party. A new leader must establish such connections. Instead, Ma could hardly wait to distance himself from the Executive Yuan and the ruling party. Hence the perception that our new leader has gone AWOL. Many people are asking whether this is the result of attempts to implement a "dual-leadership system," and to ensure the "separation of party and government?" Many people are asking whether this the ultimate expression of a "dual-leadership system" and the "separation of party and government?" Or is it merely the result of President Ma's attempt to cower behind a Maginot Line?

Ma Ying-jeou failed to establish an image of himself as a new leader and a genuine leader during the Presidential Election. Instead, he left the impression that he has adopted a defensive posture, that he is concerned only about protecting himself, and has promptly built a firewall around himself. Such suspicions may be the reason Ma's approval ratings have steadily declined. If such doubts continue to accumulate, people will wonder whether Ma is a leader who takes responsibility. President Ma must remain alert. Uncertainty may turn into doubt. Doubt may turn into contempt. Contempt may turn into hostility.

Ma speaks of "Retreating to the Second Line." Such talk has cast doubt on Ma's views, even on such minor issues as the merger of primary schools. Ma speaks of "Refusing to assume the party chairmanship." But can he really allow the chaos within the KMT Legislative Caucus to continue? Hasn't President Ma painted himself into a corner? Yes, distinctions are essential. But connections are even more important. Without connections one can never be a leader.

President Ma Ying-jeou should become the new leader he aspires to be. True leaders do not hide behind firewalls.

馬英九課題：「真領袖」不可能從「防火牆」誕生！
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.07.02 03:32 am

馬總統上任二十天，六月九日，本報社論的標題是：互補共治：重新詮釋「雙首長制」。

如今，馬總統「退居第二線」，已然成為社會議論的焦點。現今的馬英九，一方面以「退居第二線」與行政院切割；再一方面又重申「絕對不兼任黨主席」與國民黨切割。這幅圖畫，是否有點像是一名油漆匠將自己刷進了牆角？

研考會的民調顯示：馬總統的滿意度僅四十八％，不滿意度則達三十八％。我們認為，其中一大原因是：大選時民眾心目中想像的「新領袖」並未出現，整個社會陷於「馬英九到哪裡去了？」的疑惑之中。

總統直選，尤其在二○○八年的這次總統直選中，國人寄望產生「新領袖」的期望極為殷切；這位「新領袖」，應當是站在「第一線

／最前線」的「真領袖」，引領方向，披荊斬棘，標舉希望；但是，當選後的馬英九卻反其道而行，「馬上」退居第二線，這種「領袖不見了」的效應，對社會心理已經產生了明顯的衝擊。

「退居第二線」的思考出自「雙首長制」。但是，即使以雙首長制發源的法國第五共和制而言，在總統與國會之多數同屬一黨時，總統亦絕無必須「退居第二線」的問題。其實，在馬總統與立法院同屬國民黨的情勢下，若將雙首長制解釋為，總統只管「兩岸、外交、國防三權」，或總統只問競選政見是否兌現；這不但是曲解了「雙首長制」，更是「法匠」與「法奴」的思維。何況，在現實政務中，總統也許不出面（例如，不赴現場勘災），但實際上仍必須關注政務發展（例如，電詢閣揆救災措施）；然則，所謂的「第一線／第二線」，難道只是總統與閣揆誰站在電視鏡頭前的差異嗎？

以莊國榮事件為例，馬總統若能與閣揆討論，建議教育部在接到政大呈案時作出合於「法

／理／情」的處理，則問題即有妥適解決之可能性；怎麼竟會鬧到總統公開批評教評會「已逾比例原則」的地步？總統是否為了退居行政院的「第二線」，反而站上了直接干涉校園自治的「第一線」？

馬總統與行政院的關係，及馬總統與國民黨的關係，不外兩種考慮：一、聯結；二、區隔。事實上，「聯結」是絕對必須的；否則，倘若沒有「聯結」，總統非但沒有評論國小是否併校的正當性，恐怕只能做一個「虛位元首」；這是絕無可能。再者，「區隔」也是必要的；但不可為了「區隔」，而用「退居第二線」或「不任黨主席」的藉口來「一刀切」，斬斷了必要的「聯結」，推卸所應負的責任。

前文指出，為什麼社會上會有「馬英九哪裡去了」、「領袖不見了」的質疑？正因馬英九一上任，非但未能建立起「總統／行政院」、「總統／執政黨」的必要「聯結」（這是新領袖應當做的事），反而似乎迫不及待地與行政院及執政黨作出「區隔」（新領袖不見了）。許多人都在問：難道「雙首長制」及「黨政分離」就一定要操作到這種地步嗎？這究竟是「雙首長制」及「黨政分離」的真諦，或其實只是馬總統為其「守勢自保」所建構的防火牆而已？

沒有出現大選期間所塑造的「新領袖／真領袖」的氣勢，反而令人覺得馬總統似乎處處顯露自保的「守勢」作為，「馬上」在自己的四周築起了防火牆；也許正因這類社會疑惑，使馬總統的民調滿意度趨低。這類的疑惑如果不斷累積，會使人質疑馬總統是否不負責任。馬總統必須警覺：疑惑可能轉為質疑，質疑亦可能轉為輕視，輕視又可能轉為敵視。

「退居第二線」，使馬總統連談論國小併校的正當性亦被質疑；「不任黨主席」，但難道立院國民黨團的亂象要聽任其惡化下去？馬總統豈不正如油漆匠將自己刷到了牆角？是的，「區隔」有必要；但是，「聯結」更重要。沒有「聯結」，就沒有「領袖」。

馬英九總統應以成為「新領袖」自期，但「真領袖」不可能在「防火牆」裡出現！