Can the Administration Really Blame Failed Policy on Experts?

Can the Administration Really Blame Failed Policy on Experts?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 6, 2009

Speculation over whether an energy tax would be levied provoked panic in the stock market. In the Legislative Yuan Premier Wu Deng-yi publicly declared that the administration had no intention of levying such a tax for the moment, and the storm gradually subsided. But afterwards, President Ma and Premier Wu each solemnly declared that the energy tax controversy arose because researcher issued a statement before the policy was finalized, creating a headache for the administration. In the future, they said, researcher should be more discreet, etc, etc. We are deeply puzzled by both chief executives' statements. We believe that passing the buck for policy disputes onto the researchers is extremely irresponsible. But the mindset and contradictions behind this incident are what really deserve closer attention.

As we understand it, the professors researching the energy tax were commissioned by the Ministry of Finance. They were merely implementing its research projects. In mid-October, before the tempest over the energy tax erupted, the case had already been presented to the Executive Yuan many times. It had also been discussed four or five times during working sessions, joint sessions of commissioners and consultants, and formal sessions of the Tax Reform Commission. Take the joint session for example. Nearly 50 people attended. If one includes outsiders, no fewer than 100 people attended. They all saw the research data and the presentation. The composition of the Tax Advisory Commission is complex. It includes business and industry representatives, legislators, former heads of government, and others too numerous to list.

Tax Reform Commission members include academics and a number of government officials. Every time the commission holds a seminar, it supplies almost every reporter with a press kit. Ministry of Finance officials were forthcoming in their response to questions from reporters. The matter has been discussed repeatedly, far and wide. The media has reported on it. The Presidential Office and the Executive Yuan know about it. How did it suddenly become an problem of unauthorized statements to the public? Over a hundred people people have deliberated the issue for nearly two months. How can President Ma and Premier Wu possibly know that those who spoke without authorization were the academics in charge of research? Are we to understand the National Security Bureau has carried out an investigation? Can government officials indiscriminately blame academics in order to shirk their responsibility? Do they think the academics will silently accept the blame?

In fact, the role of scholars and the media is similar. Both are loved and hated by government officials. The media criticizes and comments on current affairs, it presents the truth, it reports policy, it exposes the darkside, it comments on the current situation. It often exerts no small pressure on the ruling administration. Academics are good at studying policies from a detached and abstract perspective. Their systematic and rational analysis constitutes another form of criticism. Because the media can harm them, politicians generally attempt to cultivate their goodwill. They hope to moderate the criticism to some degree. They hope the media will work with the ruling administration, that it will become its cheerleader. But as soon as a policy provokes controversy, and invites a public backlash, many officials will say "The media took my statement out of context. It was irresponsible in its reporting." They will completely disown all responsibility for mishandling their affairs.

The energy tax controversy is about proposed tax increases. Tax increases of any kind, at any time, levied by any means, will always be controversial and invite protests. This is virtually inevitable given the political environment on Taiwan. It has nothing to do with which academic said too much or too little. The real issue lies elsewhere. Since the content of the energy tax is consistent with President Ma's White Paper, these politicians must ask themselves, "Do I dare implement it?" Is the chief executive psychologically prepared to face the problem and solve the problem? Will he back down the moment a controversy erupts? Will he blame the academics helping him research the issue? If so, that can only be described as disappointing.

With regards the media, scholars on Taiwan have an even more awkward role. Because the media has the ability to counter-attack, politicians who criticize the media seldom go beyond a certain point. Seldom do they speak in tones of contempt or blame. But that is not the case with academics. Traditionally Chinese intellectuals have conventions they abide by when criticizing others. But in an era in which science and technology are king, these conventions are declining. Government heads are surrounded by large coteries of political appointees with Ph.Ds. This makes it harder for them to distinguish between independent academics and their own subordinates. They are under the misconception that intellectuals are underlings at their beck and call. Hence the ridiculous phenomenon of high officials putting down scholars and experts.

Chiang Kai-shek was trained in a Japanese military academy. He always demonstrated heartfelt respect for experts from academia. He frequently hosted scholars from universities for days on end, consulting them on state affairs. He is said to have paid personal visits to scholars, bringing them blankets and other gifts. Today, the President and the Premier are both star alumni from National Taiwan University. The tiniest of controversies panicked them into laying the blame on the doorstop of academics. Regarding the ministries responsible, they were utterly silent. Scholars engaged in research dedicate themselves the pursuit of knowledge. The ruling administration might not give them the respect they are due. But must they make them scapegoats for their policy troubles? The controversy touched off by energy taxes has been blamed on academics. But what about the controversy over the loosening of restrictions on imports of U.S. beef? Surely no academics leaked this information? Is the adminstration going to search for an official with an academic background, and parade him through the streets for shirking his duties?

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2009.11.06
社論－政策挫敗歸咎學者 真是莫名奇妙
本報訊

在能源稅是否開徵炒上檯面、引起股市恐慌之後，行政院吳院長在立法院公開宣示並沒有立即開徵該稅的打算，風波遂告平息。但在事後，馬總統與吳院長分別都對外鄭重其事地表示，能源稅風波是因為研究執行單位在政策定案之前先行對外發言，才造成政府的困擾；以後研究單位應該要謹言慎行云云。我們對於兩位最高行政首長這樣的發言深感不解，也認為把政策紛擾的責任推給學者極為不負責任。但這件事背後的心態與矛盾，恐怕更值得提出來檢討。

據了解，負責能源稅研究的教授，其實是接受賦改會與財政部的委託，而執行其研究計畫。在十月中旬能源稅案引發風波之前，該案早已向行政院簡報多次，並在賦改會的工作會議、委員與諮詢委員聯席會議、委員會正式會議總共討論過四、五次。以聯席會議為例，出席人數近五十人，外加列席者總共不下百人，他們都看過研究資料與簡報。諮詢委員組成複雜，有工商界代表、立法委員、前任政府首長，族繁不及備載。

而賦改會委員之中，除了學者也包含多位政府首長。每次賦改會討論會後，媒體記者幾乎人手一份資料，財政部官員對於記者查詢也不吝回答。這麼長程、這麼廣泛的公開討論過程，媒體都有披露、府院亦皆知曉，怎麼突然有所謂對外發言困擾的問題？百餘人長達兩個月的反覆討論，馬總統與吳院長又怎麼知道這對外發言的人只有負責研究的學者？難道國安局進行過調查？難道官員胡亂怪罪學者以為己卸責，他們就全盤接受？

其實學者與媒體的角色十分相似，都是政府官員又愛又恨的對象。媒體針砭批評時政，其呈現真相、報導政策、揭發陰暗、評論時局，常常給主政者帶來不小的壓力。學者則是擅長從冷靜與抽象的角度切入政策，予以系統與理性的抽絲剝繭，提出另一種層次的批判。正因為媒體對政客有殺傷力，所以政治人物平常都習慣性地懷柔親善，希望批判的聲音能和善一些、溫和一些，最好能與主政者合流，對當權派多所吹捧。但是，一旦政策引發爭議、輿論群起撻伐，許多官員都會說：「那是媒體斷章取義、亂寫的」，把自己處理不善的責任，完全推得一乾二淨。

以這次能源稅爭議來看吧，既然是增稅之議，則不論是增哪一種稅、要何時開徵、如何執行，都一定會有爭議與反彈；這幾乎是台灣政治生態所能預期的必然，與哪一位學者多講話或少講話都無關。問題的關鍵是：既然能源稅與馬總統政策白皮書內容一致，則政客們就必須要認真地捫心自問：「我究竟敢不敢執行？」如果行政首長根本就沒有面對問題與解決問題的心理準備，在爭議掀起之後就立刻撤守，再責怪幫忙做研究的學者，那就相當令人失望了。

相對於媒體，台灣學者的角色更是難堪。因為媒體有反擊的力量，政客們批判媒體總是點到為止，極少有鄙夷的口氣或責怪的語調。但是他們對學者則不然；中國傳統知識分子的人文批判之風，在科技掛帥的時代已然式微；而政府首長身邊有一大群身掛博士證書的政務官，也使得他們不太能分辨學者與部屬之異同，誤以為知識分子也是呼之即來、揮之即去的僚屬，遂有首長高官動輒貶抑學者專家的荒謬現象。

當年，蔣介石是日本士官學校出身，對於學界奢宿總有一分發自內心的尊重。他不時招待大學者數日長聚請益國是，據說還親自挨門挨房為學者們送棉被，以示禮賢下士。現在，總統與行政院長都是台大畢業的高材生，小小能源稅的爭議就輕率地歸咎學者發言，主管部會一事無成的責任卻是隻字不提。學者做研究只是木訥剛毅地奉獻自己的智慧，就算沒有主政者噓寒問暖的形式尊重，也不該成為政策紛擾的替罪羔羊吧？能源稅掀起波瀾可以亂怪學者，美國牛肉弄得烏煙瘴氣，總沒有學者事先走漏風聲吧？難道也該找個學者出身的官員，遊街示眾以為己卸責呢？