The Ma Administration Should Change Its Strategy for ECFA

The Ma Administration Should Change Its Strategy for ECFA
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 11, 2010

On Februrary 9, President Ma personally took to the frontlines. He went on live television and explained the Cross-Strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) to the public. But after listening to President Ma's speech, pundits said that while they appreciated President Ma's sincerity, the commander in chief personally taking to the frontlines failed to win them over on ECFA.

President Ma's speaking style stresses detailed reasoning and logic. Such a style may convince a rational audience. But it will put emotionally-oriented members of the public to sleep. The problem is that everyone thinks the administration needs to convince emotionally-oriented members of the public. That is why the Ministry of Economic Affairs recently suggested "inviting Yen Ching-piao to present an argument." The Ma Administration should do a better job of communicating the meaning of ECFA to the public. But what strategy should it adopt? What PR theme will do the trick? This is something to which it needs to give serious thought. It must look before it leaps. Here are our views on the matter, and our recommendations.

Until recently, the tug of war between the ruling and opposition parties over ECFA involved the DPP going on the offensive, and the KMT adopting a defensive posture. Going on the offensive meant the DPP alleging that once ECFA was signed, certain industries would be affected and certain people would lose their jobs. It meant alleging that economic and trade exchanges between Taiwan and the Chinese Mainland involved hidden risks. it meant alleging that once ECFA was signed, the lives of farmers would become difficult. Adopting a defensive posture meant the KMT frantically arguing this won't happen and that won't happen. It mean frantically arguing that the unemployed would be given counseling, that job applicants would be given loans, and so on and so forth.

Simply put, the DPP is resorting to fear-mongering. It is alleging all manner of negative consequences once ECFA is signed. The KMT is saying "Don't be afraid." It is saying the administration will adopt preventive measures A, B, and C to forestall those negative consequences. But when the administration repeatedly stresses that it will adopt preventive measures A, B, and C, that amounts to an admission that the Democratic Progressive Party's fears are valid. In essence, the KMT is at a disadvantage. Besides, fear-mongering requires no evidence. As long as people experience fear, one has succeeded. But appeals such as "Don't be afraid" require proof. One must endlessly prove that preventive measures A, B, and C will be effective. ECFA hasn't even been signed. The impact on industry has yet to occur. Obviously it is impossible to prove that policies will prove effective in the future. The Ma Administration has been on the receiving end of punishment all the way because it adopted a defensive strategy, in which it bears the entire burden of proof.

We feel that instead of enumerating the benefits of signing ECFA, the administration should make clear the "dire consequences of not signing ECFA." The DPP was in power for eight years. East Asian economic integration increased step by step. Taiwan's trade advantage diminished bit by bit. ASEAN plus One or ASEAN plus Three are gradually taking shape. Taiwan is already "waiting to die." Its GDP is shrinking. Research institutions have known the score for a long time. If the situation fails to improve, in ten years Taiwan will become another Cuba or North Korea. The Ma Administration must break the impasse. It must make clear the consequences of not signing ECFA to the public, through either numbers or words. It must expose the DPP's phobic, Closed Door Mentality. It must make clear that not signing ECFA amounts to perpetuating the Democratic Progressive Party's phobic, Closed Door Policy.

President Ma needs one more change to his strategy. Industrialists, manufacturers, and entrepreneurs who favor ECFA must come forward. They must speak out on behalf of the policy. As everyone knows, signing ECFA will negatively impact a small number of industries. But it will benefit the vast majority of industries. That being the case, why don't the beneficiaries of the policy speak out in its favor? When those impacted by the policy raise a hue and cry, why don't these businesses respond? Take the financial industry for example. The news is filled with reports of financial heads engaging in breach of trust or money laundering. Few of them fulfill their responsibility to society. ECFA may broaden the scope of their operations and increase their profits. They have a clear moral obligation to assist industries negatively impacted by the policy. They have no excuse to sit on the sidelines. The Ma Administration should get the silent beneficiaries of the policy to work with the rest of the community. This will make its media battle much easier.

Beneficiaries of ECFA must speak out in unision. On the one hand they must do so because they are the beneficiaries. They understand the issue the best. On the other hand they must let the DPP understand that it is making an enemy of Taiwan's economy as a whole, and not just the ruling KMT. ECFA was originally perceived as merely the pet project of President Ma and his financial and economic cabinet officials. But many industries have since spoken up. ECFA is now a public welfare issue. Initially the DPP could criticize the President and denounce his ministers with impunity. But in fact its opponent is society as a whole. Therefore the ruling KMT should line up the hundreds of industries benefitting from ECFA in front of the Democratic Progressive Party, and see if the DPP has the guts to vent its spleen at the snation's industries.

The aforementioned proposition is very simple. It can be summed up in two sentences. "Strategically, the administration must go on the offensive. Propaganda-wise, industry must speak out." Instead of micromanaging his subordinates' tactics, Ma Ying-jeou should change his strategy.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2010.02.11
社論－馬政府應調整ECFA宣傳戰略
本報訊

馬總統在二月九日親上火線，以電視現場轉播的方式，向人民解說兩岸經濟合作架構協議（ＥＣＦＡ）的種種面向。但是，在聽完馬總統的賣力演說之後，若干媒體的評論是：人民感受到馬總統的誠意，但似乎並沒有因為統帥親上火線而增加其對ＥＣＦＡ的認同。

由於馬總統個人的演講風格著重說理與邏輯細節，這樣的內容較易說服理性閱聽人，卻會使感性閱聽民眾感到沉悶。但問題是，大家都認為政府最需要說服的對象，似乎就是重感性的一群。也正因為如此，經濟部前一陣子才有「請顏清標出馬」的念頭。馬政府要強化ＥＣＦＡ政策的民意溝通，當然是對的事；但是究竟要採取什麼策略、什麼宣傳主軸去完成這樣的民意溝通，則是要慎思明辨、謀定而後動的。以下，則是我們對此事的看法與建議。

截至目前為止，朝野對於ＥＣＦＡ的政策攻防，很顯然地，是民進黨在攻、國民黨在守。所謂「攻」，是指民進黨拚命指陳ＥＣＦＡ簽署後，會有哪些產業受衝擊、這些產業會有多少人可能失業、台灣與中共經貿往來密切會有多少被裹脅的風險、ＥＣＦＡ簽署後農民生活會如何困難等。所謂「守」，是指國民黨拚命在保證不會這個不會那個、失業者會給予輔導、轉業者會施予貸款等等。

簡單地說，民進黨是在訴諸「恐懼」，強調簽了ＥＣＦＡ的種種負面後果，而國民黨則是在呼籲「不要恐懼」，政府會做好甲、乙、丙種種防範。但是，當政府不斷強調會做好甲、乙、丙時，就等於間接承認了民進黨恐懼訴求的正當性，在本質上就處於劣勢。此外，恐懼訴求不需要證據，只要人民心裡害怕就成功了；但是「不要恐懼」的訴求卻需要不斷舉證其甲、乙、丙種種措施會有效果。然而ＥＣＦＡ還沒簽，產業衝擊也尚未發生，現在要舉證未來政策必然有效，當然十分困難。馬政府之所以一路在挨打，就是因為政府一直是處在一個無法自我舉證的戰略守勢。

我們認為，政府與其要說明簽署ＥＣＦＡ的好處，不如大力宣傳「不簽ＥＣＦＡ的壞處」。事實上，民進黨執政八年，東亞經濟整合一步步在擴張、台灣的貿易優勢一點一滴在流失。在東協加一或加三逐漸成形之後，台灣已經處於一個「坐以待斃」的困局，其ＧＤＰ的萎縮甚大，研究機構早有估算。這樣的局面若不改善，台灣十年之後就會古巴化、北韓化。馬政府應該要把不簽ＥＣＦＡ突破困局的愁慘結果，用明顯的數據或文字向台灣人民呈現，告訴大家「民進黨鎖國的恐懼」。不簽ＥＣＦＡ，就等於持續民進黨帶來的鎖國恐懼。

馬總統另一項該做的策略調整，就是要讓贊成ＥＣＦＡ的產業、廠商、企業家挺身而出，為這個政策辯護、講話。如所周知，簽署ＥＣＦＡ對少數產業有衝擊，但是對絕大多數產業有利。既然如此，為什麼這些得利者不出來舉雙手雙腳贊成呢？為什麼聽到那些受衝擊的人大聲疾呼，就沒有企業出來回應呢？以金融業為例，國內幾家金融負責人平時的新聞不是背信就是洗錢，幾乎沒有對台灣社會盡任何社會責任，而ＥＣＦＡ若能使他們擴張地盤、增加利潤，他們有百分之百的義務對未來的受衝擊產業提出協助與認養計畫，絕對沒有冷眼旁觀的道理。馬政府若能想辦法把這一群受益但沉默的社會大眾拉近來共同努力，這個輿論戰就容易多了。

請各個受益產業共同為ＥＣＦＡ發聲，一方面固然是因為他們是受益者，且最了解產業的內涵，但另一方面也讓民進黨體會到，他們所面對的敵人是台灣的整體經濟，而不是國民黨政府。先前，ＥＣＦＡ似乎只是馬總統個人的政見、是內閣財經部會的主張。但是，在各產業全面發聲之後，ＥＣＦＡ就該是一個社會公益的議題。先前，民進黨批總統、罵部長可以毫無顧忌。但既然是社會整體議題，當局就該把數百個受惠產業一字排開在民進黨面前，看該黨要如何對全國產業開罵。

我們前述的主張整理起來很簡單，就只有兩句話：「戰略要攻守易位」、「