The Legislative Yuan should be the Primary Mechanism for National Policy Debate

The Legislative Yuan should be the Primary Mechanism for National Policy Debate
United Daily News editorial
A Translation
March 29, 2010

Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen may debate ECFA. But this is not the normal way to conduct a national policy debate. This process occurred outside the system. The "Two Yings Debate" has highlighted the failure of national policy debate within the constitutional framework. In particular, it has highlighted the Legislative Yuan's failure to do its duty.

The controversy over ECFA has continued for a year and a half. The executive branch has failed to allay public anxieties. The main reason is the Blue camp majority in the legislature did not treat the problem seriously and failed to take aggressive action. That is not all. Health insurance fees have been raised. The civil service job performance evaluation system has turned into a major controversy. Most legislators watch idly. They have no intention of holding a debate to establish a community-wide consensus. As a result, the public has heaped all the responsibility on the shoulders of the executive branch. Meanwhile, the legislature sits to one side enjoying the breeze. Does such an entity truly merit the honorific, "The Legislature?"

What role should the legislature play in the formulation of national policy? A look at recent U.S. health-care reforms, which underwent a long and grueling process, should give us an answer. On the surface, reforms were single-handedly launched by President Barack Obama. But a deeper look reveals that once the decision was made, the ruling and opposition parties, as well as the public, debated its pros and cons. Both houses of congress, as well as federal and state governments, repeatedly scrutinized and revised its provisions. The impact of the new system on trade unions, hospitals, drug manufacturers and the insurance industry, has been made known to the upper echelons of government. One by one, the executive branch communicated and consulted with industry, and reached compromises.

Obama did not promote U.S. health care reform merely by virtue of his noble ideals and strength of will. He made use of the nation's democratic institutions. The various parties repeatedly clashed, but eventually reached a compromise. Members of the public still have many differences of opinion regarding the program. After ten months of debate, the house and the senate each proposed their own version. They debated the issue repeatedly before finally taking a vote. The version approved by the House of Representatives includes more than 2000 pages. It established hundreds of complicated rules for different kinds of insurees. The representatives debated all of them, one by one. In short, this ambitious blueprint for reform was not made possible by rumor mongering, fisticuffs, or physically occupying the podium.

Health insurance reform in the US was no less controversial than ECFA in the ROC. The Republican Party boycotted it. Even many Democrats found their hands tied by local interests and were unable to cast affirmative votes. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shuttled back and forth. The Obama administration amended the abortion provisions, prohibiting federal funds for abortions. Only then was the Democratic Party able to secure enough votes for passage. Pelosi has her own ideology, but she is also pragmatic about political strategy. She was concerned more about party unity than about seeking a government-opposition alliance. This is the main reason the White House bill was able to pass its reforms. Reform cannot be realized through ideals alone. One must also take into account reality and feasibility. The more times a policy has been forged under intense heat, the stronger it becomes.

But the Legislative Yuan of the ROC seems to have forsaken its responsibility to reflect public opinion and to establish a public consensus. The Legislative Yuan could have been more aggressive about promoting ECFA. It could have encouraged the executive to offer a better sales pitch. It could have played a role as communicator, allowing different industries holding different opinions the opportunity to dialogue. The Legislative Yuan is the nation's highest representative body. If it had been doing its job, why would Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen need to hold a debate outside the government framework? The process of dispelling public doubts could have been conducted by the legislature via public hearings or other means. Any exchange of views would have been more extensive and diverse. But ruling and opposition party legislators were indifferent. Some attempted to incite even greater conflict. The legislature's indifference and negativity reveal just how alienating politics on Taiwan can be.

Our current political predicament is not the result of Blue vs. Green confrontation. It is the result of no means to bridge the great divide. That is why the two sides can only resort to populist demagoguery. That is why they can only shout propaganda at each other, and spread rumors about each other. But decisions are often not made at the extremes of the spectrum, between black and white. Rather, they are often made between zero and one. Finding a balance, where the winner does not take all, and the loser does not lose all, is a political art.

The legislature can transform itself into a forum for the debate of political and policy issues. Government and opposition legislators can introduce different opinions from different regions and constituencies. Such turmoil helps the executive branch understand the problem. It enables it to find the best solution for policy dilemmas. KMT legislators hold far more seats in the legislature. Yet it is unable to shepherd the ruling party's decisions through the legislature. What a shame. If DPP legislators engage in indiscriminate obstructionism out of ideological bias, then they are selfish and contemptible. Lest we forget, the legislature has had its seats reduced by half. But its ability to oversee the nation's affairs must not be reduced by half.

立法院應當成為國策辯論的主要機制
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.03.29 02:34 am

馬英九與蔡英文可能捉對辯論ＥＣＦＡ，這其實不是國策辯論的正常機制，而是體制外的非常之舉；雙英辯論，凸顯了體制內國策辯論憲政機制的失敗，其中尤以立法院的失職最屬可議。

ＥＣＦＡ問題已爭論一年半之久，行政部門未能將疑問解釋清楚固是主因，但藍軍占絕對優勢的國會並未曾認真看待此一問題，亦迄未採取任何積極作為。不僅如此，諸如健保費調漲、考績法等重大政策爭議，多數立委都袖手旁觀，無意透過國會的辯論來促成社會共識的凝聚及政策的調整。正因為如此，社會壓力幾乎全落在行政部門，但在一旁納涼的立法院，又豈對得起「國會」的角色？

國會該在國家大政中扮演什麼角色，觀察最近美國通過健保改革方案的漫長而激烈的過程，即可得知端倪。表面上看，這項改革是歐巴馬總統一手發動；但深一層觀察，在決策發動後，朝野的激辯和社會的正反意見，是沿著國會參、眾兩院的機制，從聯邦到各州反覆地磋商、推敲與修正。其間，新制對於工會、醫院、藥商和保險業的不同衝擊，也都透過民代的管道向上反映，再由行政部門逐一和業者溝通協商，取得妥協。

亦即，美國健保改革的推動，不只是靠著歐巴馬的高尚理想及堅決意志，而是要依循民主體制的運作，在各方意見之中反覆折衝，以期找到最佳平衡。且不論美國社會對此方案仍有眾多歧見，但在長達十個月的討論中，參眾兩院都曾提出各自的版本，再經反覆表決討論；最後眾院通過的方案長達兩千多頁，針對不同投保人訂出數百種繁複的規則，議員們必須逐條辯論。簡單地說，這項龐大改革工程的藍圖，絕不是靠著放話、打架、罷台或強勢表決即可完成。

美國健保方案爭議之大，其實不亞於台灣的ＥＣＦＡ；不僅遭共和黨全面杯葛，連民主黨議員也有不少人因受制地方利益，無法投下贊成票。最後，在眾院議長裴洛西的穿梭下，歐巴馬政府修改關於墮胎條款，禁止以聯邦資金補助墮胎手術，才爭取到足夠的民主黨關鍵票數。裴洛西有清晰的意識形態，但她也有務實的政治戰略，她關切黨內的團結勝過追求朝野同盟，這也是白宮的法案在眾院都能過關的主因。亦即，改革不能徒懸理想，也要顧及現實的可行性；政策愈經錘鍊，愈是扎實。

但在台灣，立法院卻似乎放棄了其反映民意、凝聚共識的角色。ＥＣＦＡ的問題，如果立院足夠積極，不僅可以督促行政部門拿出更佳說明方案，也可以扮演溝通角色，讓不同產業、不同面向的民意能夠有對話、交鋒的機會。試想，作為最高民意機構的立法院如果表現稱職，何需馬英九與蔡英文在那裡舉行什麼體制外的辯論？如果這個思辯、釋疑的過程，是在國會主導下以公聽會或其他方式進行，意見的交換應能更廣泛、也更多元；然而，朝野立委對此一分歧都漠然以對，甚至有人只是企圖挑激煽動更大的分歧。國會的冷漠消極，對照台灣政治的躁鬱，實在太顯疏離了。

台灣目前的政治困境，其實不在於藍綠對峙，而在於找不到路徑跨越意見的鴻溝，因此只能以喊話、放話等民粹手段彼此叫囂。然而，決策的選擇往往不是在「黑」與「白」兩端作取捨，而是要在「零與一」之間往返移動修正，找到一個最佳地帶，做到既不是贏者全拿，也不是輸者全丟，那才是政治的藝術。

立法院可以做的，是把自己變成政治和政策議題的論壇，朝野立委可以帶進不同地方或團體的意見，在此激盪，幫助行政部門了解問題所在，也讓政策能在折衝下找到最佳出口。對國民黨立委而言，佔有絕佳的席次優勢卻無法讓執政黨的決策過關，是可恥的事；對民進黨立委而言，若為了意識形態而不分青紅皂白阻撓決策，是自私而可鄙。別忘了，這是席次減半的首屆國會，不能讓問政能力跟著減半了。