US Beef: The Administration Should Have Stuck to the Script

US Beef: The Administration Should Have Stuck to the Script
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 4, 2009

The controversy over U.S. beef imports has become a full-blown prairie fire. The question everybody wants to ask is, wasn't it entirely predictable?
Was the government merely overconfident, or just plain arrogant? Either way, senior government officials underestimated the amount of fallout. Could loosening restrictions on U.S. beef imports lead to a public backlash? The answer was abundantly clear last year, when the same crisis played out in South Korea. Intense public protests mired South Korean President Lee Myung-bak in a major political crisis. On Taiwan meanwhile, the Ma administration learned nothing from this lesson of history. It was totally unprepared for the public reaction to its decision to loosen restrictions on U.S. beef imports. It was concerned only with policy level maneuveuring, with what sort of quid pro quo it would get from the United States, with what sort of agreements would be signed. It never considered the social and political firestorm that might follow once restrictions on U.S. beef imports were loosened. The result was like the movie "Chronicle of a Death Foretold." The loosening of restrictions on U.S. beef imports caused major shockwaves to Taiwan. It is hard to believe that while negotiating restrictions on U.S. beef imports, the Ma administration never seriously considered the experience of Korea. It never considered offering the public a thorough explanation.

Actually, this sort of sluggish, even oblivious response, is not confined to the issue of U.S. beef imports. Over a year ago, nearly all of the Ma administration's key policies were plagued by this problem. The officials responsible were too politically naive. As a result minor issues often snowballed until they were beyond repair. The Ma administration was not necessarily the real culprit. But because it failed to handle matters properly, it often ended up as the scapegoat. For example, the Chen Shui-bian administration allowed in mainland China milk products. But melamine contamination was blamed on the Ma administration all the same.

The impact of policies and decisions should be explained to the public in advance, in order to increase public understanding, reduce public resistance, and prevent the political opposition from demagoguing the issue. The Ma administration has access to experts and scholars able to provide professional advice. It has access to politicians, civil servants, and elected representatives with long experience in politics. They have their fingers on the pulse of public opinion. They know how the political opposition will respond. They know opposition pundits will find the chinks in the administration's armor. They know how the administration must respond so that its policies can be successfully implemented. But high officials in the Ma administration have always assumed that the public would never question its policies, that the public would dutifully applaud its policies, giving it a free pass, and that all would be well under heaven. But is Taiwan society really like this? Was the Ma administration, from the president on down, born yesterday? The KMT may not fear sniping from the DPP. But when people lack sufficient information, when the government makes no effort to communicate, then no matter how well-intentioned those in power might be, the public will not automatically buy what they say. Besides, when policies are made by a handful of people, any blind spots and any ill-considered aspects have little chance of being corrected before being put into practice.

Did senior government officials conduct sand table exercises to gauge public reaction before loosening restrictions on U.S. beef imports? Shouldn't a ruling administration that hopes to act responsibly provide the the public with detailed information? Shouldn't it provide everyone with as much information possible about U.S. beef? For example, which countries have loosened which requirements on which beef parts? On which beef parts does our government intend to loosen restrictions? The Ma administration has a responsibility to provide the public with the facts before it decides to loosen restrictions. These policies have an impact on people's lives and property. The people have a right to be informed about the administration's policy measures.

During criminal investigations and trials, suspects often respond like toothpaste in a tube. However much pressure one applies, however much toothpaste one gets. However much evidence the prosecution obtains, however much the suspect confesses to. Frankly, the current administration is acting remarkably like a criminal suspect. However much the public complains and the political opposition criticizes, however much the Ma administration is willing to respond. Are we to conclude that if the public failed to complain, the administration would not even bother explaining its position? In an era of democracy, the public has strong opinions. Opposition parties are constantly sniffing for the scent of blood. If the Ma administration keeps its head in the sand, it will have an ever harder time. The DPP understands public sentiment only too well. It uses this understanding to lead the public around by the nose. The ruling KMT, on the other hand, understands public sentiment not at all. It does many things without first providing appropriate explanations. It has been blasted repeatedly, but never seems to awaken from its stupor. No wonder so many characterize the Ma administration as brain-dead. Some need a longer learning curve than others, but the Ma administration's learning curve is just a little too long.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2009.11.04
社論－早知如此 還是照著劇本走
本報訊

美國牛肉議題會發展到今天這樣如火燎原之勢，令大家最想追問的一個問題就是：這一切，難道事先完全都沒有預期嗎？

不論是太自信還是太自傲，可以確定的是，政府高層肯定是完全輕忽了它的後續效應。開放美國牛肉進口所可能引起的民間反彈，早在去年韓國就已經扎扎實實、明明白白地演練過一次了，激烈的社會抗爭讓韓國總統李明博陷入極為嚴重的政治危機；台灣的馬政府竟然完全沒有「前車可鑑」的意識，對開放美國牛肉一事的民間反應竟完全不做任何防備；只關注政策層面的攻防，要跟美國交換什麼、達成什麼協議，卻不去設想一旦美國牛肉開放進口之後，會在台灣社會以及政治層面引起什麼樣的風暴；結果就像電影《預知死亡紀事》一般，美國牛肉開放進口會帶來的大震撼，一一在台灣出現，真的很難讓人相信，政府當局在談判開放美牛時，沒有認真觀察、思考過韓國社會曾經出現的狀況，沒有因此想過應該要建立一套完整、負責任的說帖來說服社會大眾。

事實上，這種遲鈍、後知後覺甚至不知不覺，並不只有顯現在開放美國牛肉進口的這件事情上，老實說，一年多來，幾乎所有重要的政策都面臨這種問題。因為相關主事官員的神經太大條，結果常常讓本來不大的問題如滾雪球般變得難以收拾，或者本來馬政府不見得是最主要的肇事者，卻因為處理不當，大背黑鍋。如陳水扁時期通過了開放大陸奶品，但三聚氰胺的苦果，卻由馬政府概括承受一樣。

很多政策、決策會造成什麼樣的影響和結果，應該早在事前就跟人民做解釋說明，以增加社會的了解、減少施政的阻力，也預防在野黨藉機大肆炒作等，種種竅門，馬政府有許多專家學者可提供專業意見，也有許多長期從事政治活動的政治人物、官員、民意代表，可以抓得住民意脈動，知道在野黨會如何出招，名嘴會如何見縫插針，因此事前提出完整的對策，讓政策可以順利推動。然而，政府高層的反應卻好似總是「天真地」以為只要政府說一，整個社會就不會說二，大家拍拍手就過關了、天下太平了──台灣社會是這個樣子的嗎？馬政府從總統以降，是第一天從政嗎？國民黨就不怕被民進黨追著打、就不知道當人們資訊不足時，當人民看不到政府溝通的誠意時，哪管執政者的立意有多良善，誰說大家就一定要埋單？更何況，當決策只是集中於一小撮人拍案時，是不是有什麼盲點、是不是有什麼不周到的地方，恐怕根本沒有機會在付諸實行前被導正。

在這次開放美國牛肉進口之前，政府高層到底有沒有沙盤推演過社會大眾會有什麼樣的反應？是不是思考過做為一個負責任的執政者，應該給人民充分翔實的資訊，盡可能讓大家知道美國牛肉的資訊？例如，哪些國家開放了哪些部分，台灣政府又打算開放哪些部位、哪些類別不會開放等等，這些都是馬政府在決定開放之前，有責任要讓人民知道的；關係到人民身家性命財產安全的政策，人民本來就有權利知道政策全貌。

人們常說某些司法案件的偵辦過程，嫌疑人總像擠牙膏一樣，證據到哪裡，他才吐出那個部分的案情，老實講，當前政府的施政給人的感覺也跟擠牙膏很像，好像民意催到哪裡、反對黨罵到哪裡，馬政府才會處理到那裡，難道，假如社會沒有什麼意見，政府當局就不打算跟大家講清楚了嗎？當然，在這個民主時代，民意高漲，在野黨四處狩獵，如果馬政府果真如此心存僥倖，那日子肯定愈來愈難過；過往的民進黨是太會操作民意了，把社會集體意識放在手上把玩，現在的執政黨又似乎太不知民意需求了，做許多事之前都不考慮向人民做合宜的說明，事後被罵了不知幾次也不覺悟，難怪有人說馬政府麻木；這個執政團隊的學習曲線未免也太長了。