The Government Cannot Govern By Polls Alone

The Government Cannot Govern By Polls Alone
China Times News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 1, 2009

Since the Wu cabinet took office, it has proposed a number of new concepts, including its "Meat and Potatoes Economics" and its live vote on "Ten Major Public Grievances," which has made quite a splash. Premier Wu has unquestionably demonstrated his own personal style. His "Man of the People" political style works for him on a certain level. But on the other hand, as a future cabinet policy strategy, it leaves much to be desired.

The Wu cabinet is hardly the first to "govern by slogans." During President Lee Teng-hui's administration his slogans were "The people's grievances are forever etched in my heart," and "The common man's little problems are the government's big problems." When James Soong was provincial governor he bandied about the expression, "the common man" even more freely. If we look at these examples, we realize the key to success when "governing by slogans" is follow through. If Premier Wu is worried about bureacratic indifference and bureaucratic inertia, he can indeed use political gestures such as opinion polls and live votes to mobilize and awaken the executive branch. No matter how grand its goal, the government must put public sentiment first.

Policy slogans, however, are not policy objectives. If the Wu Cabinet uses a live vote on the Internet to determine policy direction, it will encounter problems, both in principle and in practice.

First take methodological problems. Even assuming the Ten Major Public Grievances can be taken as a reference point for governmental policy, the Wu Cabinet's live Internet vote made a number of serious mistakes. City folk use the Internet far more than country folk. Younger folk use the Internet far more than older folk. Therefore if one has gathered only 4000 votes, they cannot be considered a cross-section of public discontent. The number one grievance basically affects only cities in the north. Therefore many grievances were not even listed. The live vote did not reflect problems in rural villages. Out of every eight newborns on Taiwan, one is born to a foreign spouse. The live vote did not give voice to the grievances of foreign spouses either. The live vote did not reflect their voices and their problems. Can we conclude therefore that their problems are non-existent or unworthy of our concern?

Even more serious than problems with polling methods, is the nature of the polling process. Some may say that governing means holding a referendum on a daily basis. But experienced leaders know that a nation cannot be governed by means of polls. We can tell this merely by examining the list of "Ten Major Public Grievances." The most obvious example is "Traffic fines and towing fees are too high." This was public grievance number seven. Whether such complaints are reasonable can be debated. The paradox is that complaints about "Illegal occupation of pedestrian arcades, roadsides, and parking spaces," was public grievance number ten. When public grievances contradict each other and clash, how can the administration govern by listening to public opinion polls?

Also, some grievances are not the result of opinion polls. Nevertheless they are issues the government must address. For example, number two on the Top Ten List was telephone and Internet fraud. Even without polls, the government must realize the seriousness of the problem, based purely on the crime statistics alone. Even Minister of the Interior Chiang Yi-hua has received phone calls from con artists. How can the public not be aggrieved? Telephone fraud and ninth ranked lax food inspection are the result of government indifference. If the government must resort to opinion polls to learn what the public is unhappy about, then it is insensitive beyond belief.

Public grievance number three was difficulty in finding employment. The unemployment rate is close to 6% this year, highest among the four little dragons. Unemployment has long been a serious economic problem. Up to 600,000 people are unemployed. That means 600,000 families affected. This is no longer a public grievance. A better term would be "public tragedy." Why does the government need polls to understand the seriousness of unemployment?

Of course there are some problems that may be counterproductive for the government to tackle. For example, excessively high housing prices in metropolitan areas is basically a problem of supply and demand. It is a problem common to urban regions throughout the world. But on Taiwan there is a serious gap between urban and rural regions. If the pressure is intensified, it may spread to other regions. Even assuming Premier Wu wants to intervene, he may not be able to. Interest-rate policy is set by the central bank. Premier Wu may not understand this. He may propose increasing the housing supply. But even if Premier Wu builds affordable housing next to the subway, he cannot escape the laws of supply and demand. Can he really provide affordable housing in metropolitan areas? It is highly unlikely.

Most importantly, polls may help the government understand today's grievances. But the nation's future development requires capable administrators with elevated perspectives and broad visions. They must be forward-looking, able to set medium and long-term goals. As Premier Wu said, a national leader must be forward-looking, organized, and innovative. These three abilities are not something one can obtain from the Internet by conducting live votes on "Ten Major Public Grievances."

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2009.12.01
社論－政府不能光靠民調施政
本報訊

吳內閣上台以來，從提出「庶民經濟」的新觀念、到轟轟烈烈的票選「十大民怨」，吳揆確實展現了強烈的個人風格，若從「親民」的角度而言，這些作法仍有一定的意義；但是，如果要作為未來內閣的施政方向，則必然會出現偏差。

「口號施政」並非吳內閣首創；李登輝總統時代有「民之所怨、長在我心」，而「人民的小事情就是政府的大事情」，則更是宋楚瑜擔任省長時代、民間都琅琅上口的一句名言。從這些例子看起來，「口號施政」是否成功，關鍵在於政府施政是否貫徹。如果吳揆擔心政府麻木不仁、出現官僚惰性，確實可以用民調、票選的大動作，來動員、提醒行政部門，不管再有怎樣宏遠的大目標，政府一定要將民意的感受放在第一位。

但是，施政口號不等同施政方針，吳內閣若依此網路民調來定出施政方向，從理論到技術都會出問題。

先就方法論的問題而言，即使十大民怨真能作為施政參考，則吳內閣的網路民調，已出現嚴重的偏差。因為，台灣上網人口至少有年齡及城鄉差距等問題，因此這僅有的四千票，並不能反映真正的民怨。如票選第一名的房價過高問題，基本上是北部都會現象，也因此，不少潛在的民怨，竟成為「十大民怨」中，沉默的一群。例如，民調看不到農村的問題；再如，台灣目前每八位新生兒就有一位是外配所生，但民調中也聽不到外配的聲音。民調看不到，但我們可以說，這些問題不存在、或不值得重視嗎？

比民調方法更嚴重的是本質問題，雖然有人說，執政就是每天進行公投，但是，有經驗的執政者都知道，不能靠民調治國。我們若檢視十大民怨的結果，就可看出端倪。最明顯的一個例子是，「交通違規開單拖吊過嚴」排名第七大民怨，這樣的抱怨是否合理已有爭議，但是弔詭的是，「占用騎樓、道路及車位」又是第十大民怨，面對兩項互相矛盾、衝突的民怨，若全聽民調的，政府要如何施政？

另外，有些民怨則是不用民調，也是政府份內職務，例如，十大民怨高居第二名的電話及網路詐騙問題，即使未經民調，政府也該從犯罪統計了解問題之嚴重，連內政部長江宜樺自己都曾接到詐騙電話，民怨怎可能不深！電話詐騙問題和排名第九的食品衛生把關不嚴一樣，都是政府該為而不為，若還要經過民調才知道，只能說這樣的政府未免太麻木不仁。

再如，排名第三的求職不易及失業問題，以今年全年失業率接近百分之六、高居四小龍榜首的狀況，失業早就是嚴重的經濟問題，而高達六十萬人失業，代表有六十萬個家庭受衝擊，這已不是民怨，該形容為民哀，政府何須經過民調，才會了解失業問題的嚴重性。

當然，還有一類是政府管了，可能會有反效果的。例如都會地區房價過高問題，基本上是供需問題，因此是全球都會地區的普遍現象，但在台灣卻有嚴重的城鄉差距，若強力打壓，可能波及其他地區。事實上，即使吳揆想管，他也不見得有政策工具，因為利率政策是由央行負責；當然，吳揆未必不清楚，因此他提出的是增加供給的策略，不過，即使吳揆在捷運旁蓋平價住宅的政策，最後是否能逃過供需法則，真能在都會區提供平價住宅，也令人不敢樂觀。

更重要的，民調也許可以讓政府了解今天的民怨，但是，面對國家未來的發展，有能力的執政者，必須能有足夠的高度及廣度、及前瞻性，來定出中長程目標。就如吳揆所說，作為國家領導人，必須有前瞻、整合及創新三項能力，而這三項能力及視野，就不是靠「十大民怨」網路民調所能達成的。