Political Appointees: Reconciling Convictions with Responsibilities

Political Appointees: Reconciling Convictions with Responsibilities
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 15, 2010

In just one short week, two cabinet ministers resigned in the midst of policy turmoil. The two cabinet ministers differ in that Yang Chih-liang stuck to his guns regarding health insurance premium increases. Much of the public has affirmed his professionalism. He also cleared away numerous obstacles in the way of a premium increase. Wang Ching-feng on the other hand, refused to implement the death penalty due to ethical concerns. She stirred up considerable controversy, and debased the level of public discourse. She allowed the administration to become caught on the horns of a dilemma.
Yang Chih-liang Yuang and Wang Ching-feng have resigned over policy disagreements. This is better than officials resigning over personal corruption. This is better than betraying one's convictions in order to cling to one's job. The two have at least left their mark on government. It is difficult to denigrate the way they did their jobs. Wu Deng-yi attempted to dissuade Yang Chih-liang. Considering how two well-respected political appointees have resigned in such a controversial manner, the issue of right and wrong surely merits our attention.

Yang Chih-liang is an academic. Wang Ching-feng is a human rights lawyer. Both have professional images. This is why they were recruited in the first place. The two entered politics. The two should have been able to carry out their jobs in a professional manner. The two should have been able to benefit society and the public. Who knew they would resign over personal beliefs? If we compare the two, Yang Chih-liang's resignation was more rational. He wanted to ensure the fiscal integrity of the health insurance system. Wang Ching-feng's insistence on abolishing the death penalty was merely about clinging to her personal beliefs, while ignoring the social realities and the duties of her position.

Most surprising of all is Wang Ching-feng's value system. She cares deeply about 44 death-row inmates' right to life. She boasts she is willing to "descend into hell" for them. But she has little concern for public anxieties at the other end of the spectrum. She has few if any words of comfort for family members of victims of violent crime. The abolition of the death penalty may be an "international trend." But how can a justice minister turn a blind eye to the concerns of her own compatriots? Wang Ching-has failed to reconcile her personal beliefs with social reality. The bias is so severe, it could be considered obsessive. She has in fact put the cart before the horse.

A political appointee's personal beliefs are one thing. But in order to impose one's personal beliefs on the public, one must first go through legal and institutional channels. Wang Ching-feng has obsessed on the need to abolish the death penalty. But she has made no effort to undergo due process. Not only that, she has constantly resorted to extreme measures when dealing with problems. As a result, she has made matters worse rather than better. For example, she characterized the signing of an execution order as "homicide." She in effect demonized the ministerial system. She left her successor holding the bag, as she cavalierly resigned and departed. She protected her public image of "respect for life," even as she shifted the burden of "homicide" onto the administration and society as a whole. Her posture is extremely dubious.

In her capacity as Minister of Justice, Wang Ching-feng had many opportunities and channels by which she could have persuaded the public to respect human life. She had many ways by which she could have gradually promoted her goal of abolishing the death penalty. But she chose to ignore them. Instead, she resorted to rhetorical shock tactics to promote her beliefs. As a result, she has debased public discourse of the issue, and regressed it to a more conservative extreme. If in the wake of this incident the public on Taiwan is less willing to abolish the death penalty, and if the international community's human rights index for Taiwan declines, Wang Ching-feng will have a hard time escaping blame. Her impetuous resignation can only be described as "cavalier in the extreme."

Besides abolishing the death penalty, Wang Ching-feng taught us another lesson, namely, how should politicians go about realizing their "personal beliefs." Wang Ching-feng resigned over her personal beliefs. She declared that she "did the right thing." But her declaration involves a huge paradox. First of all, "doing the right thing" is not necessarily the same as "doing things the right way." Secondly, Wang Ching-feng may have done the right thing for herself as an individual, but she may not have done the right thing for society as a whole.

German sociologist Max Weber spoke of the distinction between the "ethic of responsibility" and the "ethic of conviction." Irresponsible politicians seek only personal peace of mind and moral purity. They ignore their social responsibility as public figures. They ignore their responsibilities as wielders of public authority. Such "politicians of conviction" often care only about expressing their own their moral sentiments. They are not prepared to debate with others. They are not prepared to convince others. They are heedless of the consequences of their words and deeds. Perhaps these saints should never enter the political arena, because their moral superiority does not allow them to deal wtih other people as equals.

Wang Ching-feng, in emphasizing the right to life, may have been oblivious to her own moral posturing. But if political appointees' only response in the face of public controversy is to retreat into their personal beliefs, that is tantamount to abandoning the public domain. The truly regrettable aspect of Wang Ching-feng's resignation is that to the bitter end, she experienced no "ethic of responsibility" whatsoever.

政務官在信念與責任之間的平衡
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.03.15 03:40 am

短短一周，兩名內閣閣員在政策風波中掛冠請辭。所不同的是，楊志良對漲保費的專業堅持得到不少民眾肯定，同時也為保費調整排除了若干障礙；而王清峰拒執行死刑的道德訴求，攪翻社會一池春水，卻讓問題的思辯走向倒退，更讓政府陷入進退兩難之境。

楊志良和王清峰為理念不合而求去，較之官員因貪贓枉法而去職，或為戀棧而不惜出賣公權力，至少留下了獨特的身影，其品操難以一筆抹煞。雖然吳揆還在極力慰留楊志良，但兩位平素風評不惡的政務官以如此爭議的姿態求去，其間輕重是非，確值得我們進一步探討。

楊志良是學者出身，王清峰原為人權律師，均素有不錯的專業形象，這也應是他們獲邀入閣的主因。兩人既投身政治，即應以專業能力服務新的角色，以求有利於社會和人民，未料兩人最後都卡在個人的信念求去。兩相比較，楊志良的堅持是基於決策理性，以維持健保制度的健全為出發；而王清峰的廢死堅持，則只顧維護個人信仰，卻忽略了社會現實與職務角色。

最令人驚訝的是，在王清峰的價值天平上，她心心念念四十四名死刑犯的生命權，聲稱願意為他們「下地獄」；但對另一端對治安存疑義的廣大民眾卻冷眼以對，亦對曾因暴行受難的家屬也幾無一語寬慰。即使廢除死刑是「國際潮流」，但一位法務部長面對本國人民的疑慮，能視若無睹嗎？王清峰在理念與實務之間的失衡竟嚴重到這種地步，不僅偏執，也倒置了本末。

政務官的個人信念是一回事，要將這個信念灌注到施政上，仍須透過合法及制度化手段來達成；但王清峰一再強調廢除死刑的必要，卻不設法尋求程序的完備。不僅如此，她在處理問題時連續作出過激表現，反讓事情愈發棘手。例如，她形容簽核執刑令為「殺人」，不啻妖魔化了部長的制度角色，也把這個原罪強加到繼任者身上。而她輕鬆下台而去，維持了自己「尊重生命」的形象和信念，遺下的「殺人」問題卻拋給政府和台灣社會去承擔。這種態度，確實頗有可議。

以法務部長之角色，王清峰原本有許多機會和管道向民眾宣導尊重生命的意義，以目的及手段兼顧的方式，徐徐向廢死的法制道路推進。但她捨此而不為，卻以驚世駭俗的言論推銷自己的信念；如此一來，反而把社會輿意的討論推向更保守的極端。經過此一事件，如果台灣社會對廢除死刑的抗拒更大，國際對台灣人權指標的評價下降，王清峰恐怕難辭其咎。她暴衝式的去職，可謂「輕於鴻毛」。

除了廢死，王清峰留下來的一課，還有政治人物如何實現「個人信念」的問題。王清峰為個人理念而去職，她稱自己是「做對的事」，這句話存在著莫大的弔詭。第一，做對的事，未必「做對事」。第二，對王清峰個人而言是對的事，對社會未必是對的事。

德國社會學家韋伯當年曾區分「責任倫理」與「信念倫理」，認為只講「信念」的政治家，是不負責的政治家；因為他們只追求個人的心安與道德的純潔，卻忽略了公眾人物對社會的責任，怠忽了公權力的職責。「信念政治家」往往只是任性地發洩道德情緒，既不準備與他人辯論，也不準備說服別人，更不在意自己言行會帶來什麼後果。這種道德聖人，或許原本即不應該進入實際政治操作的領域，因為在他們的道德優越感之下，不容許別人與他們平等。

王清峰在強調生命權時，未必意識到自己在誇示道德優越感；但政務官面對沸騰的民意，若只能退回到個人信念的堡壘，那等於宣告棄守公共領域。王清峰下台，真正令人惋惜的是，她到最後一刻對己身所負的責任倫理仍一無感應。