Why Talk of Reform if One Cannot Tolerate Appointees with Ideas?

Why Talk of Reform if One Cannot Tolerate Appointees with Ideas?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 12, 2010

Department of Health Director Yang Chi-liang tendered his resignation over the health-care fee increase controversy. After several rounds of dispute, the issue of his resignation remains unsettled. Superficially the dispute is over the cost of health insurance. But if one digs deeper, one discovers it is actually over political appointees' vision and principles. This is a problem that deserves close attention.

A political appointee is someone who must assume responsibility for the failure of his policies. Therefore the most important requirement for a political appointee is a comprehensive policy blueprint and vision. Think of the government as a vast machine. Civil service officials are large or small cogs in this machine. They are important. But they seldom direct the operation of the machine. Political appointees are the engineers whose responsibility it is to oversee the operation of the machine. They design and review the blueprints for the machine. They also direct the operation of the machine.

Of course, sub engineers who oversee individual machines cannot oversee the plant as a whole. From time to time, they must communicate with the chief engineer. They may even need to submit progress reports to the director. The sub engineers and the chief engineer each have their own areas of expertise. They also have their own blind spots. They must communicate with each other frequently. They must coordinate and compromise as they oversee the operations of the plant's machines. If the sub engineer and the chief engineer have major differences over the blueprints and operational strategy for the plant, the sub-engineer is the one who must resign. This describes most peoples' understanding of the government. Cabinet officials are the sub engineers. The premier is the chief engineer. The president is the director.

Allow us to be so bold as to ask the president and the premier how many officials in the current cabinet have any policy concepts, any policy blueprints, any sense of direction, and any vision for the future? Yang Chih-liang is in charge of health-care financing. He vision may be too narrow. He has proposed increasing the price of health care for high-income individuals. Some are critical of his proposal. But Yang is one of the few cabinet officials over the past two years who have any ideas or insights of their own. Most political appointees are good only at crisis management or coping with the media. They good only at obeying the chief engineer or director's commands, and have no opinions of their own. They are good only at self-preservation, at hiding behind bureaucratic smoke and mirrors. They are incapable of offering any views, policies, or reforms of their own. They are unable to lead the public into the future. Our question is simple. How many Republic of China cabinet officials have any policy blueprints of their own? How many of them understand the distinction between a political appointee and a civil service official?

Yang's health-care reforms may not be perfect. UDN editorials have been critical of him. But we prefer controversial political appointees with flawed policy prescriptions to namby-pamby, mealy-mouthed political appointees unwilling to express themselves, unable to offer any policy visions of their own. Society has no shortage of capable individuals with policy prescriptions to offer. Yuan Presidents and the public may attempt to draft them. But secretary-generals may be fearful of public opinion. The legislature may subject them to humiliation. One election follows another, year after year. Everyone knows it is difficult to get anything done in such a political atmosphere. A handful of idealistic individuals may try, only to find themselves being swept away by the raging political currents. Exerting any significant influence under such circumstances is nearly impossible.

Yang Chi-liang's resignation is a mere microcosm of the peverse "elimination of the fittest" in today's political environment. Ma and Wu will of course have little trouble finding a replacement. Health care reform may continue, business as usual. But the resignation has dealt a severe blow to morale in the cabinet. This must not be taken lightly. How can current and future cabinet heads retain their commitment to reform? Lonely policy prescriptions may lack the support of cabinet heads. How can they be sold to a public under the sway of populist sentiment? If future ministry heads reflect upon this sorry record, how committed will they remain to reform? Where exactly is the Ma administration looking for talent?

Over the next two or three years, the Republic of China will face three major challenges. ECFA will soon be signed. Domestic confrontation between the Blue and Green camps will remain serious. Industrial upgrading will remain urgent. The fiscal deficit is worsening. Public and private sector investments are on the wane. By contrast, raising health insurance rates is a relatively simple matter. If such a simple policy issue cannot be handled properly, if political appointees are not permitted to express their own views, how can the public hold out any hope for other more complex policies?

Yang feels that the setbacks to his policies are related to endless annual elections. But we think it has to do with our political ecology and our culture. Leaders with ideals and aspirations will evince no fear of the election culture. They will shield political appointees from such pressures. Reform is possible only when talented people are able to contribute. But the current political environment is just the opposite. Those in the know are concerned. Will Yang's resignation serve as a wake up call to the president and the premier? This may be the key to the Republic of China's future.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2010.03.12
容不下有見解的政務官 奢談改革
本報訊

衛生署長楊志良因健保費調漲爭議請辭，在幾經折衝之後仍難轉寰。表面上看這件事情的爭議，在於健保費調漲門檻的高低，但若深入檢視，則會發現這是一個牽涉政務官視野與原則的大問題，值得仔細剖析。

如所周知，政務官的定義就是要為政策成敗負責的官員。因此，當政務官最基本、最重要的條件，就是坐在這個位子的人必須要有一套整體的政策藍圖與願景。如果將政府部會比喻為一台大機器，則事務官就是這機器上的大小零件，雖然重要、卻較少有運作方向的主觀意志。但政務官則是負責督導操作機器運行的工程師，他們一方面設計並檢視藍圖，另一方面則引領指揮機器運轉。

當然，分項工作的機器工程師並不能觀察工廠運作的全貌，他不時需要與廠房的總工程師溝通討論，甚至也要向廠長報告進度。機器工程師與總工程師各有熟悉的場域與觀察的盲點，往往需要彼此溝通、協調、妥協，然後才能完成一套機器操作的指揮流程。如果分項工程師與總工程師對於藍圖與運作策略有重大的意見歧異，則分項工程師就得走人。以上的描述，應該相當符合一般人對於閣員（分項工程師）、閣揆（總工程師）與總統（廠長）的互動邏輯。

但容我們冒昧地請問府院首長：現在的內閣成員中，堪稱有政策理念、有施政藍圖、有方向視野的，究竟有幾人？楊志良署長在萬千業務中獨沽健保財務一味，眼界或嫌狹窄；他所提健保改革案著重對高薪資所得者調高費率，外界亦有批評。但無論如何，楊署長幾乎是過去兩年來內閣首長中極少數幾位講得出一套理念與見解的閣員。其他絕大多數的政務官，或則擅長處理危機應付媒體，或則服膺總工程師或廠長的一切指揮而全無己見，或則明哲保身於官場煙幕之中而苟且度日，但就是不曾、不能提出一套見解、一套政策、一組改革方案、一場能感動人民引領未來的論述。我們的問題很簡單：台灣的內閣成員中有政策理念藍圖者幾希？真正能分辨政務官與事務官區別者，又有幾人？

楊署長的健保改革案也許不理想，本報社論對此也有些評論；但是，我們寧願政務官的政見有瑕疵、有爭議，也不願見唯唯諾諾、庸庸祿祿、完全沒有政策願景與論述能力的所謂政務官。社會上不乏有政策論述能力的人才，但是在院長庶民召喚、秘書長畏懼輿情、國會凌遲羞辱、年年選舉壓力之下，任何人才都知道這是一個難以發揮的大環境。即使少數有理想抱負者仍願執意力拚，也只是逆向洪流中載沉載浮的浮羽扁舟，要能發揮重要影響，幾乎是全無可能。

楊志良署長堅辭案，只是當今政壇逆向淘汰的殘酷縮影。馬、吳二人當然不愁找不到接替人選，健保改革案也有可能照常推動，但內閣士氣因此件請辭案所受到的打擊，絕對不能等閒視之。試問所有現任首長與未來可能的閣員人才，要如何說服自己保持改革的熱情？孤獨的政策論述要如何在首長不支持的情況下，與廣大的民粹意識溝通？如果以後的部會首長都「鑑往知來」，台灣究竟還有多少的改革動力？馬政府究竟還能去哪裡尋覓人才？

台灣在未來兩、三年面臨的挑戰極大：ＥＣＦＡ簽署在即，國內藍綠對抗嚴重，產業升級刻不容緩，財政赤字惡化，公私部門投資活動消極；相對而言，健保費調整議題還算是單純的。這樣一個單純的政策都處理不好，都容不下有自己見解的政務官，其他更複雜的政策又焉能讓人民樂觀期待？

楊署長認為其政策挫敗可能與台灣年年選舉的情境有關，但我們卻認為這是一個政治生態與文化的制度性問題。有理想、有抱負的領導人不會畏懼在選舉文化中保護優秀的政務官；一個改革的環境，應該是要期待優秀人才能盡情地為台灣奉獻付出才是，但目前的環境卻恰恰相反，令有識之士心憂。楊署長辭官究竟能不能激發出府院高層的的覺醒認知，恐怕是台灣未來發展的關鍵。