The Cabinet Must Not Deselect People of Talent

The Cabinet Must Not Deselect People of Talent
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 15, 2009

President Ma and Liu Chao-hsuan's public approval ratings have recovered substantially following the general resignation of the Liu cabinet. The TAIEX soared at the news. Clearly the public approved of the Liu cabinet's decision to assume responsibility for the 8/8 Flood by resigning en masse. But the day after the makeup of the new cabinet was announced, the court handed down its first instance verdict in the Chen corruption case. The public had no time to analyze and comment on the cabinet reshuffling. But the Chen corruption case has now receded from the headlines, and the cabinet reshuffling will have an impact on Taiwan's future. Therefore it is time we subjected it to further review.
Long before the 8/8 Flood, the public had already formed either positive or negative impressions of the Liu cabinet. Some cabinet members had poor public approval ratings. During the recent cabinet reshuffling, these cabinet members were replaced. They include Chen Chao-min, Chen Ching-hsiu, Francisco Ou, and Yin Chi-ming. Some cabinet members had very poor public approval ratings, but have unexpectedly been asked to stay on. Other cabinet members had good public approval ratings. Some of them were even model cabinet members. These include former Education Minister Cheng Jui-cheng and former Chairman of the Council for Economic Planning Chen Tian-chi. Yet for some unexplained reason, they have left. The majority of cabinet members' performance was not bad. They should have remained in office. The aforementioned cabinet reshuffling involved four types of cabinet members. Two types provoked the greatest anxiety. They were "those who should have left, but didn't," and "those who should not have left, but did." These two types were, in effect, deselections." Politically speaking, "deselections" are an extremely undesirable phenomenon. Whenever they occur, we should be alarmed.

Put plainly, deselections are a case of "selecting the bad" combined with "deselecting the good." It includes those who occupy positions of responsibility but do no work, and those whose hearts aren't in their jobs. They end up performing poorly and harming the nation. Many people on Taiwan miss the late President Chiang Ching-kuo because during his term of office he laid the foundations for Taiwan's economic development. This foundation was created by Sun Yun-suan, Li Kuo-ting and other capable and industrious ministers. Sun and Li were willing to dedicate their lives to the nation for two reasons. One, the legislature was not as fierce and crude as it is today. Two, they wielded clearly delegated powers, making it clear what their subordinates had to do. A healthy political culture can attract talented people from near and far. But an unhealthy political culture can result in the "deselection" of people of talent.

Take Chen Tian-chi for example, the cabinet's financial and economic "model student." Much to everyone's regret, he has resigned and returned to National Taiwan University to teach. Rationally speaking, why should he serve as a cabinet official when he can serve as a professor? Why attend endless meetings every day, eating greasy box lunches, sleeping fitfully at night, enduring verbal abuse in the Legislative Yuan, merely for three square meals a day? Such hardships make it difficult to maintain one's ideals. They make one fearful of the bureaucratic jungle. Most importantly, one may be willing to kill oneself in an effort to contribute to the greater good. But the environment will prevent one from accomplishing anything worthwhile. This deep divide between contribution and accomplishment makes serving in a cabinet a life-shortening experience. Accepting a cabinet position is not something a rational and competent economist is inclined to do. The Republic of China government lacks the objective conditions necessary to attract talented people. The only way to retain such people is appeals to idealism. When people who need to be kept on choose to leave, it means they have become bitterly disillusioned. For those in authority, this is definitely a warning sign.

Conversely, when those who ought to leave stay on, that constitutes another public setback, another crisis of confidence. Over the past year, the Blue and Green media, the financial press, domestic scholars and experts and foreign rating agencies, have repeatedly criticized the government's financial plans. They feel the serious public sector budget deficit bodes poorly for the nation's credit rating. Recently published international competitiveness ratings indicate that the Republic of China's ranking has improved. But that is primarily due to the Ma administration's deregulation of cross-Strait policy and gradual liberalization of industry. These are unrelated to the budget deficit. In terms of practical policy, the disaster relief efforts of the Ministry of Finance and the Department of Defense were roughly equal. But the result was Chen Chao-min stepped down, while Li Shu-teh stayed on.

The current cabinet reshuffling resulted in many cabinet members who should have departed staying on, and many cabinet members who should have stayed on, departing. The frustration felt by these cabinet members is of lesser importance. Of greater importance is public concern over the determination of Taiwan's financial and economic policies. In fact, the vast majority of the public has no personal relationship with the president, cabinet members, or other high-ranking officials. Who is in and who is out, who will stay and who will leave, makes no difference to them personally, All they know is how they feel about the administration. This may sound abstract, but at election time their feelings will be translated into votes. If qualified financial and economic experts desert the administration, many people may feel let down. For President Ma the most serious concern may be the loss of votes. To bring down the Republic of China's finances may take two or three years. But to leave people frustrated and disappointed about the economic outlook, will take no time at all.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2009.09.15
社論－閣員更替千萬不能有「反向選擇」
本報訊

這一次內閣總辭過後，馬總統與劉兆玄前院長的民調支持率皆明顯回升，台北股市亦以大幅上漲以為慶祝，顯示台灣人民大體對於內閣總辭負起水患救災責任，是給予肯定的。然由於在新閣名單底定之後第二天就恰逢扁案一審宣判，輿論也就來不及對內閣改組一事多所析論。現在，隨著扁案熱潮消褪，我們確實該對關係台灣未來發展的內閣重組，做進一步的檢視。

早在八八水患之前，坊間對於舊內閣成員的表現，早就有或褒或貶的評價。有些閣員的民間評價不佳，而也在此次改組中順勢去職，包括陳肇敏、陳清秀、歐鴻鍊、尹啟銘。有閣員民間評價頗差，但改組後意外獲得留任。有些閣員坊間評價不差，甚至列為閣員的模範生，如前教育部長鄭瑞城與前經建會主委陳添枝，他們都莫名其妙地走人。當然，大部分閣員表現不惡，都屬於應該留任者。在前述四類閣員洗牌類型中最令民眾不安的，應該是「該走的沒走、不該走的卻走了」這兩類，屬於標準的「反向選擇」。政治上若出現反向選擇，其實是極為糟糕的情境，值得警惕。

用白話文來說，反向選擇就是「來者不善、善者不來」。所謂善者不來，當然是指人才的裹足不前；而所謂來者不善，又是指政治上那些尸位素餐、曲意承歡之輩誤事誤國。蔣經國總統之所以令許多台灣人懷念，是因為他任內奠定了台灣經濟發展的基礎，而這個基礎，正是由孫運璿、李國鼎等能幹閣員所打拚出來的。孫、李等人之所以願意搏命奉獻，一則是由於當年的國會不像今日之剽悍與粗魯，二則是因為大老闆授權明確，使得下屬有清楚的打拚目標。良好的政治環境總能創造出這樣一個能人志士「近悅遠來」的情境，但是不好的政治環境就反而會造成人才的反向選擇。

以內閣的財經模範生陳添枝為例，其去職返回台大教書就令人相當惋惜。從理性的角度來看，好好一個教授不做，發神經去內閣做官？每天開不完的會、吃不完的油膩便當、睡不好的夜晚、按三餐挨立法院罵、難以堅持理想、令人戒慎恐懼的官場生態；最重要的是，賣命付出卻難有成就的大環境。這樣不成比例的「投入與產出」，是百分之百的折壽行業，理性與能幹的經濟學者一般而言是不會做的。台灣若沒有吸引人才從政的外在條件，那麼唯一能使人才投入的吸引力，就只有「理想」二字。當不該走的人才紛紛離去時，就表示他們的理想逐漸幻滅，對主政者而言，這絕對是個警訊。

相反的，如果該走的沒走，對人民而言那也是另一種挫折、另一種信心危機。過去一年，不論是立場偏藍偏綠的媒體、財經專業的報紙、國內的學者專家、國外的信評機構，都一再對台灣政府的財政規畫多所批評，認為公部門預算失衡、赤字嚴重，有極大的潛在信用危機。雖然最近公布的國際競爭力評比顯示台灣的排名有所進步，但那主要是與馬政府兩岸鬆綁、產業管制逐漸開放有關，而與財政赤字全不相干。就實際政策而言，財政部施政慌亂與國防部的救災表現不相上下，但結果卻是陳肇敏下、李述德留。

這一次內閣改組，許多人對於若干閣員「該走的沒走、不該走的卻走了」感到挫折。但對情緒挫折還算事小，重要的是，民眾也對於決定台灣財經政策的領導格局感到憂心。其實，對絕大多數人民而言，他們與總統或閣員等大官是沒有什麼交情的。誰上誰下、誰去誰留，都沒有什麼個人感情考量，唯一有的，就只是那難以名狀的「感覺」。這感覺雖說有些抽象，但在選舉時卻會轉換為具體的選票。財經人才留不住，許多人感到失望。但是對馬總統而言，也許更需要擔心的，是可能失去的「票」。 要把台灣的財政拖垮，可能還得要兩、三年的光陰，但要讓人民對經濟前景挫折失望，那卻是可以立竿見影的。