The Hidden Crisis Revealed by One Opinion Poll

The Hidden Crisis Revealed by One Opinion Poll
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 30, 2009

Who has one man above him, and tens of thousands of men beneath him? In ancient times it was the "first minister." In modern times it is the premier. Who has two men above him, and tens of thousands of men beneath him? In modern times it is a ministry head. But according to the latest poll conducted by Wang Wang and the China Times, the name recognition of ministry heads with tens of thousands of men beneath them, is quite low. Without prompting, 82% of all respondents could not name a single minister. Even with prompting, 52% of all respondents still couldn't name a single minister. These ministry heads are important and powerful. They are responsibile for policies that impact our lives. Why is the public so unfamiliar with them? This is not merely a question of how well individual ministry heads can explain or defend their policies.

Polls are merely for reference. Phone surveys cannot tackle issues that are too complex. They can only ask the most rudimentary questions about the respondent's objective and subjective impressions. According to the Wang Wang China Times poll, the three most visible cabinet members, the ones with the highest name recognition and policy making ability, were Central Bank President Peng Hui-nan, Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng, and Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Lai Hsing-yuan. The Peng cabinet members have tenure, hence job security. Not surprisingly, the Ma administration official who has served the longest, who has the greatest ability, and who has the approval of both the Green Camp and the Blue Camp, is Wang Ching-feng. For years, Wang Ching-feng was a champion of the downtrodden. Recently, campaigning for the three in one local elections and anti-corruption campaigns have given her even more exposure. Lai Hsing-yuan has primary responsibility for the Ma administration's cross-Strait policies. Recently the fourth Chiang/Chen Meeting has received the greatest media coverage, giving Lai more name recognition. But how is one to explain the low name recognition factor for so many other ministry heads?

Perhaps the ministry head lacks charisma and the ability to defend his ministry's policy. But individual ministry heads have any number of ways to make themselves seen and heard. First, the agency may be too anachronistic. Former legislator Kao Shi-po, is the son of former Speaker of the Provincial Assembly Kao Yu-ren, and Deputy Prime Minister Chu Li-lun's brother in law. His name recognition factor is hardly low. But for the public, the function of the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Committeee is a mystery. The general population cannot connect him with his job.

Secondly, the work of certain agencies has little immediate relevancy for the public. For example, the CEPD is responsible for national land planning. Normally the vice premier would be in charge, because most of its business is inter-ministerial in nature. But because its activities have little immediate impact on the public, the pollsters did not even mention him. No wonder the head of the CEPD is so forgettable.

Thirdly, officials have a hard time surviving. Ministry heads are replaced with frightening alacrity. One hardly has time to note what they do before they are replaced. In the past school tests sometimes asked, "Who is the Minister of Foreign Affairs? Who is the Minister of the Interior? Who is the Minister of Education?" More recently, these have not been included among the test questions. The reason is simple. Before the test is administered, the ministers may already have been replaced. Or they may be replaced immediately after the test is given. We can force students to remember the names of key ministry heads, but what would be the point?

But leave aside these structural factors. Ministry heads themselves cannot escape blame. The function of any particular agency may not be obvious to the public. But these agencies are nevertheless answerable to the Legislative Yuan. In other words, as long they are required to present their case to the legislature, they have no shortage of opportunities for media exposure. The less exposure ministry heads have, the lower the public name recognition. The views ministry heads hold may not meet with the approval of legislators. They may lead to noisy debate. But the public does not forget noisy debates. How can anyone unwilling to defend his policies be remembered as a ministry head willing to assume responsibility? Take Director of Health Yaung Chih-liang for example. He wants to raise fees for health insurance. He supports the administration's policy on US beef imports. His views may not coincide with those of his superiors. But he courageously stated his professional opinion. The public affirmed his courage. By contrast, when ministry heads assume only that "no news is good news," and run for cover at the first sign of controversy, they are going to have a hard time enhancing their name recognition.

Apart from these structural factors and individual factors, the most worrisome problem is public indifference to public affairs. This is no trivial matter. This is a problem common to all democratic societies. The situation in the United States is similar. When pollsters ask students in high school and above, the names of national leaders, most of them draw a blank. Why? Is it really because "politics is so awful?" Politics may indeed be awful. But politics impacts everyone. One may ignore politics. But politics is not going to ignore you. That being the case, why do so many people refuse to touch it? Is the political culture on Taiwan so far gone that no one even wants to think about it? Does no one even want to discuss such matters as political policy?

A society without public discussion of political policy, will find it difficult to elevate the standard of its political culture. This is the most frightening problem on Taiwan. Some people may blame these ministry heads' lack of name recognition on President Ma. They may demand to know why the president chose these people in the first place? But is the problem really that simple? When the public doesn't know the names of ministry heads, should we rush to blame the president? That is not how a healthy democratic society functions. When most ministry heads go unrecognized by 40% of the public, then that is a problem society truly needs to ponder.

一項民調數據背後所透露的危機
2009-12-30
中國時報

一人之下，萬人之上，是誰？古代是宰相，現代是行政院長。兩人之下，萬人之上，是誰，在現代講就是各部會首長，不過，根據旺旺中時最新民調，這些萬人之上的部會首長們，知名度甚低，在不提示的狀況下，高達八成二的受訪民眾，講不出任何一位部長的名字，即使提示，還是有高達五成二的民眾講不出任何一位部長的名字！為什麼位高權重，業務、政策與民眾息息相關的部會首長不為人熟悉？這已經不只是首長個人政策說明或辯護能力的問題。

持平而言，民調只是參考數據，因為電話民調不可能做太複雜的問題，只能就主客觀印象做最基本的詢問。在旺旺中時民調結果中，知名度與政策能力排行前三名的內閣閣員：央行總裁彭淮南、法務部長王清峰、陸委會主委賴幸媛。彭係內閣中受任期保障，馬政府就任迄今任期最長的閣員，專業能力歷綠、藍而皆受肯定，這個結果並不令人意外；王清峰多年投身保護弱勢的社會運動，最近也因為基層三合一選舉宣導反賄而有相當曝光率；賴幸媛則身負馬政府兩岸主軸政策之所繫，最近又有媒體曝光率最高的四次江陳會。但是，其他部會知名度如此之低又該做何解釋？

從首長個人魅力、政策辯護能力到作秀能力，都可能是理由，但還是有若干結構因素非首長個人可以主控，諸如：第一，機關存在與時代和社會需求落差太大，前立委高思博、係前省議會議長高育仁之子，是行政院副院長朱立倫的連襟，他的知名度絕對不低，但是他和蒙藏委員業務差距太大，一般民眾很難把他和機關串聯在一起。

第二，機關業務和民眾直接關聯性沒這麼高。比方說，經建會負責國土規畫與國家願景，過去常態性是由副院長兼任，因為該機關業務多數事涉跨部會，但是，偏偏和一般民眾距離沒這麼近，在民調中甚至連提示都沒提示，經建會首長的名字當然很容易就這麼被疏忽掉。

第三，官不僚生，首長更迭太快，連記得他做什麼事的時間都還不夠之前，就被替換掉了。過去學校考試，偶爾時事都還問問外交部長是誰？內政部長是誰？教育部長是誰？晚近這幾年，這些題目都不在基測、學測考量之列，原因很簡單，出題的時候，部長可能就換了，或者，才考完部長就換了，即使以考試強求學子去記得重要部會首長都不再有意義。

但是，在這些結構因素之外，部會首長也有難辭其咎之處。因為機關業務可能與民眾未必直接相關，但是，行政部門必須向立法院負責，換言之，只要在國會鼎力辯護，就有曝光機會，首長曝光機會少，自然民眾指名度低，知名度就不可能高。首長意見很可能未必符合立委之意，大吵其架者所在多有，吵了架就不大可能讓民眾不記得，不肯為政策辯護吵架者，又如何讓民眾記得這位部長很有肩膀呢？以衛生署長楊志良為例，他要漲健保、還要為美牛政策辯護，辯護之餘還未必與高層意見相合，但他堂堂正正為自己的專業辯護，民眾就肯定他。相反來看，當部會首長腦袋裡只想到「沒新聞就是好新聞」避禍原則，遇事就躲，想有知名度都難。

除了上述結構因素與首長個人因素外，最讓人憂心的則是：民眾根本不關心公眾事務！不要小看這個問題，這是民主社會的通病，美國情況非常類似，以民調詢問高中以上學生，該國部會首長的名字，同樣有高比例是答不出來的。為什麼？真的是「政治太可怕」嗎？政治即使真的很可怕，但因為政治是管理眾人之事，你不關心，它都可能影響到每一個人的生活，即便這樣為何民眾還是避之唯恐不及？難道，台灣的政治環境和文化已經惡化到沒有人願意去思考、去討論政治或政策這些事了嗎？

一個沒有公眾討論政治或政策的社會，很難強求政治文化得到提升，這是台灣潛藏的最可怕的問題，有人直接把部會首長知名度低怪罪於馬總統，直斥為什麼總統要用這些人？問題能這樣簡單化思考嗎？當民眾不識部會首長的時候，動輒就要總統負起責任，這絕對不是一個健康的民主社會的正常現象，當多數部會首長竟都有超過四成的民眾不識，這問題真的值得台灣社會一起思考。