No Hit Parade for Public Grievances, No Fast Track for Political Accomplishments

No Hit Parade for Public Grievances, No Fast Track for Political Accomplishments
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 27, 2009

From his "Meat and Potatoes Economics" inititiative, to his live vote on "Ten Major Public Grievances," Premier Wu Den-yih has shown that he is indeed a "man of the people." But his call for a live vote on public grievances, and his promise to budget 500 billion NT for a "flagship project" to eliminate public grievances, is dubious, to say the least.
When a ruling administration is genuinely determined to address public grievances, it should be applauded. At least this is not a phony issue. Compared to the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution," or the "referendum to join the UN," it is far more concrete, far more real, and far more relevant to our daily lives. Getting get past empty political disputes, and getting back to fundamental issues of public welfare would be a positive development. But if government officials have no clue what the public is unhappy about, and need a live vote to determine which grievances ought to be given the highest priority, then it is unconsciously engaging in another form populist pandering.

How did this notion of a live vote on public grievances come about? After Wu Den-yih announced his "Meat and Potatoes Economics" initiative, the CEPD responded by cooking up over 200 action programs and sub-programs. To Wu Den-yih, these programs were overkill. They tried to be all things to all people. They tried to do too much. In the end nothing would get done. He asked the ministries to pick out those programs that would "impress" the public the most. This would maximize their impact. In other words, Premier Wu wanted to make a major gesture that would put a shine on his halo, that he could introduce with a great deal of fanfare. But here's the rub. Is ruling a nation really so simple? Can one really pull a few rabbits out of one's hat and leave the public gasping in astonishment?

In today's society, information is readily available. Every day the government is the target of countless petitions, street protests, and criticisms and suggestions from bloggers on the Internet. Doe the government really not know what people are unhappy about? In fact, as long as the various ministries compile statistics, and elected officials at all levels exchange a few views, or even search the Internet with Google, they will have all the information they ever need. Whatever made them consider resorting to a live vote?

The Wu cabinet may say that government policies require prioritization. A top ten list of public grievances would help prioritize these grievances. This sort of thinking is not wrong per se. But one must not allow oneself to be misled. First of all, the government must have something to show in the way of improved cross-Strait relations, increased public confidence and civic pride, and more effective managment of the economy. If instead it turns administrative routine into a political football that requires the resolution of public grievances, it has gotten its priorities reversed. Secondly, if one looks at the "potential grievances" list, one sees "salaries have not risen" and "gasoline prices continue to rise." How will the Wu Cabinet deal with these? Thirdly, the voting technique itself may result in deviations from the norm, and bias the results. They may ignore or filter out the voices of many disadvantaged elements within society. Fourthly, when the government asks various departments to resolve items on this "hit parade of public grievances," it may well crowd out many routine administrative activities. It may well create new grievances.

If one examines the public grievances that have received the most media attention lately, most of them are minor matters. They include being towed for temporarily parking next to a yellow line, government agencies passing the buck, double standards for law enforcement, and overly strict urban planning standards. These are all a far cry from the 500 billion NT flagship program Premier Wu wants to address public grievances. Clearly public discontent focuses upon bureaucratic inconveniences and systemic injustices. Day after day, these grievances accumulate. Elimination of these grievances does not require spending a lot of money. All that is required is slight adjustments in attitude, or minor improvements in procedure. A closer look reveals that what angers the public the most is governmental injustice, aggravated by bureacratic indifference. Officials turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to problems right under their noses. These problems include a lackluster economy, low public morale, a failure to recover one penny from the Ah-Bian corruption case, years of police inaction in response to rampant telephone fraud, and an inability to catch the culprits responsible for long term damage to the environment. These grievances may not be on the top ten list. But who can say that they are not angry knots in everyone's gut?

Governance must put the public first. The administration's intentions are good. But addressing public grievances does not require spending a lot of money. It does not require making top ten lists. It merely requires addressing the attitudes of officials at all levels of government. Civil servants must be the first to demonstrate a spirit of service, and a willingness to address people's problems. That is the ultimate solution for the elimination of grievances . A record of political accomplishments cannot be created overnight. Grievances require measured solutions. Otherwise, the Wu Cabinet's 500 billion NT budget to address public grievances, could give rise to a public firestorm that merely provokes new grievances.

民怨沒有排行榜，政績豈有速成班？
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.11.27 03:04 am

從倡議「庶民經濟」到票選「十大民怨」，閣揆吳敦義展現了他接近民意、體貼庶民的一面。但他要求以「票選」方式來排列民怨，並聲稱將編列五千億元「旗艦計畫」來消除民怨，卻有商榷餘地。

主政者有心消除民怨，值得給予肯定，至少這不是一個假議題；比起「正名制憲」、「入聯公投」等，都是更具體、真切、攸關民生的事。台灣能擺脫空泛的政治爭議，回歸民生基本面，這是正向的發展。問題在，如果政府官員竟似不知民眾有何怨怒，而要用「票選」來決定優先次序，恐怕也不知不覺落入了另一種民粹的窠臼。

票選民怨的源起是，吳敦義提出「庶民經濟」概念後，經建會相應制定了兩百多項的行動方案及子計畫；吳揆認為其內容鋪天蓋地、包山包海，「面面俱到，等於面面不到」，因而要求各部會擬訂最讓民眾感到「驚艷」的方案，才能收到耳目一新的效果。亦即，吳揆需要的，是一個能夠即時打響、擦亮內閣招牌的大動作。但弔詭之處也在這裡：治國若想要用三招兩式就讓民眾一新耳目，天下有這麼簡單的事嗎？

現代社會資訊如此發達，政府每日收到的陳情、街上進行的示威抗議、網路部落格上各式的批評和建議，皆已多到難以勝數，政府能說不知道民怨在哪裡嗎？事實上，只要各部會做個統計，與各級民代稍微交換意見，乃至上網用谷歌搜尋，都有足夠資料可資參佐，怎麼會用到「票選」這種手法呢？

吳內閣也許會說，施政有先後，列出十大民怨，執行上更能分出輕重緩急的優先次序。這種想法，不能說錯，卻必須注意其誤導效果。第一，倘若在兩岸關係、人民的信心與光榮感，及經濟治理等大格局上沒有成績，反而將原本在日常行政中應當解決的民怨變成政治主題，恐將捨本逐末。第二，看「候選民怨」項目中，「薪水不漲」及「汽油漲價」也是選項，吳內閣如何救治此類民怨？第三，票選的形式，本身即可能產生偏離及過濾效果，主動隔離掉許多更弱勢民眾的聲音。第四，當政府要求各部門傾力解決排行榜上的民怨，極可能對其他例常行政業務造成排擠，反而在新的空窗地帶滋生新民怨。

檢視近日見諸媒體的民意，各界反映最多的民怨，許多其實都是小事。諸如，黃線臨時停車被拖吊、行政機關踢皮球、警察執法兩套標準，以及都市計畫太過苛擾等；這些，和吳揆準備以五千億元旗艦計畫消民怨的構想，似乎大相逕庭。很顯然，民眾的不滿主要集中在政府的不便民和執法不公，日復一日便形成了積怨；要消除這部分的民怨，並不需要花大錢，只要制度稍作調整或執行態度稍加改善即可。深一層看，人民更大的怨懟其實是，明明大家都看見的問題或不公不義的現象，政府卻裝聾作啞，諸如：經濟不見起色、社會士氣低沉、扁案贓款至今追不回分文、詐騙電話擾民多年警方卻束手無策、台灣環境土地長期遭到汙染卻抓不到元兇……。這些問題，也許未必會登上十大民怨排行榜，但誰能說它不是纏繞在每個人心頭的頑固怨結？

政府治理軌道能回歸以人民為先，出發點值得肯定。但要治民怨，其實不必花大錢，更不能只看排行榜，而是該先「治心」：各級政府官員、所有公務人員都該先拿出服務的精神，認真面對人民的問題，那才是消除民怨的終極法門。政績很難速成，民怨需等量對待；否則，吳內閣若真的列出一個五千億的「治民怨預算」，那麼這個動作掀起的爭議恐將引發另一個新的民怨。