Taiwan Does Not Have Fat Cat Syndrome. It Has Red-Eye Syndrome

Taiwan Does Not Have Fat Cat Syndrome. It Has Red-Eye Syndrome
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 19, 2010


The CEO of the Taiwan Asset Management Corporation (TAMCO) lined his own pockets at company expense. The Legislative Yuan Finance Committee took advantage of the resulting wave of populist sentiment. It swiftly passed a resolution capping salaries for the chairmen and general managers of public or quasi-public utilities at 32,000 a month. According to information collected by the legislators, the current annual salaries are: Taiwan Stock Exchange (TSE) 7.63 million, the Gre Tai Securities Market (GTSM) 8.28 million, the Taiwan Depository & Clearing Corporation (TDCC) 5.62 million, the Taiwan Futures Exchange (Taifex) 634 million. Their average monthly salary exceeds 50 million, nearly three times that of ministry heads. Naturally everyone is jealous.

Who are the people occupying the aforementioned positions? They are none other than people such as former Financial Supervisory Commission chairman Sean Chen and former CEPD vice chairman Schive Chi. Besides the FSC chief, those in charge include the president of the Industrial Technology Research Institute under the Ministry of Economic Affairs, and the chairman of the External Trade Development Council. These positions are considered sinecures. The Ministry of Finance also controls a large number of public shares, hence cushy jobs. If these sinecures were monopolized by a tiny coterie of retired officials, outside suspicions would be understandable. When they were in office, they may not have made any extraordinary contributions. Their placement in these sinecures was the result of sponsorship by former superiors, rather than a shining record in the marketplace. Their extravagant salaries would provoke envy, and it would be hard to avoid characterizing their positions as patronage.

The vice-premier has reportedly discussed the issue of salaries for heads of public enterprises. The Executive Yuan raised a number of questions. It asked about the contributions made by those occupying these sinecures. "Were their contributions greater than those of Central Bank CEO Peng Hui-nan?" When challenged using such a high standard, these fat cats would find it hard to declare "My contribution is no less than his." But such comparisons involve a number of blind spots.

First of all, the Stock Exchange and the Gre Tai Securities Market are headed by former cabinet ministers. That is why the Executive Yuan cites Peng Hui-nan in comparison. If the CEO of trhe Taiwan Stock Exchange was not a retired official, but the manager of a private sector securities firm, or a well known foreign business manager, how would his contribution stack up against Peng Hui-nan's? We are used to seeing these job openings as the exclusive domain of retired political appointees. That is why we compare their salaries against those of cabinet ministers. We provide them a salary of 320,000 NTD, twice what a political appointee receives, and consider ourselves generous. But such a perspective assumes that the position is only about patronage. Admittedly, the issue can be demagogued to good effect. But that would be a very narrow view of the matter.

Logically speaking, public enterprises need to be well managed. They are not retirement communities. Morris Chang once served as president and chairman of the Industrial Technology Research Institute. This laid the foundation for TSMC's future. If legislators were to check out "President Chang's" salary back then, they would realize that today's "fat cats" are emaciated by comparison. They don't even rate. If one is determined to manage a public enterprise well, one needs to bring someone of Morris Chang's caliber back to Taiwan. One must offer him an appropriate salary. If we had another chance to create a wafer miracle, the government ought to pay such pioneers salaries over ten times that of cabinet ministers, not two times that of cabinet ministers. Talent has a market value. A manager has a manager's market value. Therefore, when one is seeking out talent, the salaries depend upon the invidual. They should not be set artificially. When one is seeking to put an end to patronage on the other hand, even twice the salary of a cabinet minister is too much. It all depends on one's perspective. It all depends upon how the legislature views the matter.

We favor salary caps for retired political appointees. In fact, we feel their salaries should not exceed those for cabinet ministers. But we do not favor salary caps for the heads of the Taiwan Stock Exchange, the Gre Tai Securities Market, and the Industrial Technology Research Institute. The same job can be filled by different people. Only if one is providing patronage for retired cabinet ministers, will one make comparisons with cabinet minister. If one is recruiting outside talent, one will not think in such terms. Salary caps would of course be irrelevant. Also, if these posts are filled by retired cabinet ministers changing track, the government need only stipulate that a particular individual should have his salary capped. The difference can be deposited in the government's coffers. There is no need whatsoever to limit the salary for the position as such.

The Legislative Yuan views the Taiwan Stock Exchange and the Gre Tai Securities Market as sinecures for retired cabinet ministers. This is a shallow and narrow perspective. Consider Chiu Cheng-hsiung. He retired as Minister of Finance. He then became the CEO of Grand Cathay Securities and the Aetna Commercial Bank. The former vice president of the Executive Yuan is now the CEO of the Yongfeng Holding Company. How do his contributions stack up against those of Peng Hui-nan? Such comparisons are difficult to make. Is his salary capped? Probably not. Is he a fat cat? Probably not. His income is determined by the marketplace. In short, from the perspective of elected representatives, retired officials are all fat cats. But from the perspective of civil society and the marketplace, our elected representatives are all unreasonable. This is the sad reality on Taiwan.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2010.03.19
台灣有紅眼症 沒有肥貓症
本報訊

在台灣金聯董座自肥案出包之後，立法院財政委員會日前又趁著這股民粹順風，一舉決議要自四月一日起，將所有公股派任的公營或準公營事業，其董事長與總經理等每月待遇上限一律限為卅二萬。據立委所蒐集的資料，證交所董座每年七百六十三萬、櫃買中心八百廿八萬、集保中心五百六十二萬、期交所六百卅四萬。這些薪資平均算一算，每個月都有五十餘萬，幾乎是部會首長的三倍，當然令眾人眼紅。

前述這幾個職位現在由哪些人在擔綱呢？不外是前金管會主委陳?、前經建會副主委薛琦等。除了金管會主管事業外，經濟部轄下也有工研院院長、外貿協會董事長等肥缺，而財政部公股掌控的油滋滋職位也不少。這些肥缺若是由少數卸任政府官員所盤據，外界質疑就在所難免。他們在就任之前也不曾有過什麼豐功偉業，而其進駐肥缺靠 的是老長官的提攜拉拔，不是市場上的輝煌戰績。若是如此，那麼其高薪惹人嫌惡，恐怕就與「酬庸」兩個字難脫關係了。

據了解，行政院副院長曾經對公股事業負責人的薪給召開會議做過討論。行政院所提的問題是：這些肥缺負責人的貢獻，「有大過央行總裁彭淮南嗎」？用這樣的標準質疑當前的肥貓群，貓兒們大概都很難挺身說出「我貢獻不比他小」的答案。但這比較方法背後隱藏著若干盲點，值得提出來檢視。

首先，正因為證交所、櫃買中心的負責人是部會首長出身，所以行政院才會用「彭淮南」來相比。如果證交所董座不是卸任官員，而是民間某證券公司的經理、或國外知名的管理人才，那麼他的貢獻要如何與彭總裁比？也因為我們習慣性地將這些職缺視為卸任政務官的禁臠，才會動輒將他們的薪水與部會首長相比，認為給他們卅二萬，兩倍於政次的薪水，就是給了多大的恩給一般。但這樣的觀點打從心底就難脫酬庸卸任首長的心態，雖有民粹討好之效，視野卻相當的封閉。

照理說，公股事業是要好好經營的，不是要安息養老的。當年，張忠謀也做過工研院的院長與董事長，為日後的台積電公司奠基。立委們如果去查一查當年「張院長」的薪水，就知道今日所謂肥貓相較之下乾癟瘦小，根本端不上檯面。但如果真要辦好事業，真要請張忠謀這樣的大和尚回台唸經，就一定要搭配個像樣的待遇。假設今日還有機會再創造一次晶圓奇蹟，國家對開創者所該付的薪水，不僅不止是部長的兩倍，甚至高上十幾倍也是應該的。人才有人才的行情，經理人有經理人的市場，故從找人才的角度觀之，薪水是因人而異的，根本不該設限。但若從防堵酬庸的角度觀之，則部長兩倍的薪資恐怕都嫌多。正看成嶺側成峰，端視立法院看問題的角度而定。

挑明了說，我們贊成對卸任政務官轉任公股職務的待遇設上限，甚至規定不得超過部長薪水都可以。但是我們不贊成對證交所、櫃買董座、工研院院長等「職務」的薪資設定上限。同一個職務可以找不同的人來做；酬庸卸任首長才有待遇配合首長的思惟，延攬外界人才則根本就不受類似思考的羈絆，當然就沒有薪給上限的問題。此外，如果其職位是由卸任首長轉接，政府只要規定此人「所領」薪資上限即可，其餘差額皆可繳庫，根本無需觸及該職位本身的薪資額度。

立法院常將證交所、櫃買中心視為金融首長卸任後的肥缺，那實在是粗淺狹隘的見解。看看邱正雄吧，當年卸任財政部長，就坐上大華證券董座、安泰商業銀行董座。如今卸任政院副院長，又有永豐金控董座等著。他的貢獻有大過彭淮南嗎？這很難比。他的薪水有上限嗎？大概沒有。他算是肥貓嗎？應該不算，因為那是市場決定的。總之，從民代的角度看，卸任官員人人都肥胖臃腫；但從民間與市場角度看，現任民代人人皆不可理喻。這正是台灣的悲哀。