President Ma's Second Anniversary: Unfulfilled Expectations and Their Remedies

President Ma's Second Anniversary: Unfulfilled Expectations and Their Remedies
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 20, 2010

President Ma Ying-jeou has been in office for two years. He has passed the middle of his term of office. The past two years could be considered a collision between the type of president Ma Ying-jeou wanted to be, and the type of president the public wanted him to be. The next two years will require that he bridge the gap between his expectations and those of the public. This will determine the success or failure of his four-year presidential term.
Two years ago, on May 28, the Executive Yuan made a surprise announcement. Gasoline prices would be raised. On April 25 this year, the Two Yings Debate took place. These two events can be seen as bookends. They bracket Ma Ying-jeou's two years in office. They reflect the gap in expectations, and the remedies that must be applied.

On May 20, 2008, President Ma took office. The Chen administration had frozen gasoline prices for six months. The public waited to see if the new administration would fulfill its "one time only increase" election promise. Sure enough on June 2 the Liu cabinet announced a price increase. Alas this provoked gasoline hoarding, putting the public at risk from hazard of fire. With lightning speed the Liu cabinet announced a price increase on the 29th. People responded by lining up to fill their tanks. Gas lines stretched for miles. Public discontent came to a boil. The public concluded that the Ma administration had flunked its very first test.

The Ma administration has now changed its policy to "floating prices" adjusted every week. This was the very first test for the Ma administration. For the next two years the Ma administration would repeat this same defective decision making procedure, again and again. It would find itself on the receiving end of public wrath, again and again. In terms of oil prices, the decision to "respect the market mechanism" and adopt "floating prices" is strategically correct. But to announce price increases on June 2, provoking hoarding, then making another surprise announcement, provoking gas lines, was a tactical blunder that stirred up a political storm. Public disillusionment and skepticism regarding the Ma administration's "rule of law" and "meat and potatoes economics" began to grow.

Examples such as this are too numerous to list. For example, President Ma declared that typhoon disaster relief was mainly Premier Liu Chao-hsuan's responsibility, and that the president ought to retreat to the second line. Disaster victims were both angry and suspicious. They puzzled over the reasoning behind his declaration. The 8/8 Flood was a major disaster. Yet Ma Ying-jeou failed to declare an emergency. He was characterized as "legally correct" but "politically incorrect." Another example was the recent arbitration victory in the Lafayette frigate kickback scandal. The Chen administration attempted to settle the case privately, on the pretext that "arms compensation" is not merely a means of engaging in corruption, it also impacts international and cross-Strait politics. Ma Ying-jeou however risked the uncertain outcome of arbitration, refused reconciliation, and forsook the opportunity to use "arms compensation" to manipulate international politics.

Many have blasted Ma Ying-jeou, calling him stupid. In fact they are merely saying they don't think he is sufficiently calculating, sufficiently devious, sufficiently tuned in, sufficiently Machievellian, sufficiently ruthless. For example, the public feels that Chen Tsung-ming refuses to step down because Ma Ying-jeou is "impotent" and "gutless." But one of Ma's important political convictions is non-interference in judicial affairs. Unfortunately this has led to a "gap in expectations."

The Two Yings Debate held in April of this year can be viewed as the beginning of an attempt to bridge the gap in expectations. Given Ma Ying-jeou's personality, he may have been looking forward to a calm and rational dialogue. Been circumstances forced him into a head to head debate. Ma probably knew he was at a disadvantage vis a vis debating skills. But he respects the opposition's watchdog role. He ran a major political risk. He put himself on an equal footing with Tsai Ing-wen and accepted the challenge. Fortunately Ma Ying-jeou gained the upper hand. Otherwise who knows how much worse the "gap in expectations" would have gotten?

During the Two Yings Debate public attention was focused on which of the two Yings was turning in a better public performance. But Ma Ying-jeou was probably merely hoping to gain public understanding and trust. The way Ma Ying-jeou handled himself during the debate showed he was serious, diligent, and sincere. He knew the risks. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. He knew the economy had to be revived. Tsai Ing-wen refrained from accusing Ma Ying-jeou of "pandering to [mainland] China and selling out Taiwan" because it was merely a Green Camp street slogan. There is no assurance it would have done the trick during the debate. In fact one of Ma Ying-jeou's most important personality traits is his loyalty to the Republic of China. That may be why his cross-Strait policy has gained the support and trust of a majority of the public. Which political leader on Taiwan besides Ma Ying-jeou exhibits these personality traits?

What kind of president does Ma Ying-jeou want to be? He probably does not want to be a media star. Instead, he wants the nation and its government to operate in accordance with the principles of justice and the rule of law. In cross-Strait affairs, he wants to be pragmatic. He is unwilling to see cross-Strait issues exploited for populist leverage during political struggles. His political style has led to a shortfall in public expectations. How can the President stand on the "second line?" Why doesn't Chen Tsung-ming feel compelled to step down? Why is the Chen Shui-bian corruption case on hold? Why is the majority party in the Legislative Yuan doing nothing? Why doesn't he meet with the Dalai Lama? Why the string of lost elections? Why the tax cuts for the wealthy? Why will ECFA harm weak industries? Why do we all feel so ill at ease?

Ma Ying-jeou has been president for two years. The Republic of China inhabits a world in which the mainland is rising, the U.S. is declining, the Republic of China is wracked by internal divisions, government personnel are either veterans or rookies, with no one in between, justice no longer prevails, the Chen corruption case is going nowhere, the global economic crisis has slowed economic growth, the threat of ASEAN plus N has surfaced, and the threat of economic marginalization looms. This would seem to be the time for a Man on Horseback, a "Father of Democracy," or a "Son of Taiwan" to come riding to the rescue. Instead, to lead us out of our predicament, we have a political leader who studiously maintains a low political profile, who eschews populist demagoguery, but who has won the trust of leaders abroad, across the Taiwan Strait, and on Taiwan. Ma Ying-jeou apparently regard this as his historical role. Taiwan must no longer be a political stage for charismatic demagogues. Taiwan needs self-effacing political leaders who can heal cross-Strait wounds, and allow us to return to peace and reason.

But a two year "gap in expectations" has left Ma Ying-jeou scarred. The public is disappointed in him. Ma Ying-jeou now stands on the front line, and is moving closer and closer to the "politics of the man in the street." The Two Yings Debate will be viewed as an attempt to address the "gap in expectations." Ma Ying-jeou hopes to win public understanding and trust for his policies. But populism may prevail. The public may care more about who turned in a better performance during the debate.

The Republic of China is in dire straits, internally and externally. President Ma's performance will be held up to a microscope, a magnifying glass. It will even be held up before a funhouse mirror. He must watch what he says. A single remark about having "creepy feelings" can provoke public attacks. He must be careful to maintain his trusted and irreplaceable role in cross-Strait affairs. Ma Ying-jeou admittedly has many things he can be criticized for. His policy bungles have left his administration in crisis. But as we review the record of the past two years, he remains the right choice to lead the Republic of China over the next few years,

馬總統二周年：角色期望落差的衝撞與修補
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.05.20 01:57 am

馬英九總統就職滿二年，任期已經過半。這兩年來，可謂是「馬英九自己想作一個怎樣的總統」，與「國人期望他作一個怎樣的總統」的強烈衝撞過程；未來兩年，則將是這種「角色期望落差」的修補工程，並將由此決定他四年總統任期的成敗得失。

兩年前，五月二十八日，行政院以奇襲方式宣布油價上漲，與今年四月二十五日的雙英辯論，這兩個事件，一頭一尾，跨越馬英九的兩年任期，正好反映了上述「角色期望落差」的衝撞與修補。

2008年五月二十日，馬總統上台，油價已被扁政府凍漲了六個月，國人皆在觀望新政府何時實施「一次漲足」的競選政見；果然，劉兆玄內閣宣布將在六月二日漲價，但立即引發囤油居奇，公共安全危機四伏，劉內閣遂閃電宣布於二十九日漲價，爆發了排隊搶購的風潮，車隊綿延數公里。於是，民怨沸騰，指馬政府「第一堂課就不及格」。

如今，已然改採「浮動油價」，每周調整一次。這個「馬政府的第一堂課」，其決策模式及所引致的批評，幾乎是兩年來馬政府多數政策的「原型」。以言油價，決定「尊重市場機制」，採行「浮動油價」，其實皆是「戰略正確」的主張；但居然預先宣布將在六月二日漲價以致引發囤積，再又突襲漲價引爆搶購，則分明是在戰術面及溝通面造成了政治風暴。在這當中，就出現了「依法行政」及「庶民政治」的期望落差。

此類事例，不勝枚舉。例如，馬總統一度認為，颱風勘災慰問，應讓閣揆劉兆玄先去，總統則退居第二線；此說惹得災民又怒又疑，質問這是什麼道理？甚至發生八八水災那麼大的災難，馬英九堅不宣布緊急命令，亦被指為即使「法制正確」，卻是「政治不正確」。再如最近拉法葉艦佣金案仲裁獲勝，扁政府曾欲私下和解，藉「武器代償」，一方面操作國際及兩岸政治，另一方面作為貪墨器具；但是，馬英九卻冒著仲裁勝負未定的風險，堅拒和解，也無意藉「武器代償」操弄國際政治。

許多人批評馬英九笨，其實不少批評的真意是指他不夠權謀，不夠奸巧，不夠通達，不會弄權，不夠壞；例如，強烈的民意認為，陳聰明久不下台是因馬英九「無能」、「沒有魄力」，但不干涉司法卻是他的重要政治信仰與堅持之一。然而，「期望的落差」卻因此而生。

今年四月的雙英辯論，似可視為這種「期望落差」修補工程的開端。若依馬英九的真性情，他可能更期待一場平和理性的「對話」；卻被情勢推上針鋒相對的辯論。其實，馬應自知在口才上未必占有優勢；但他卻尊重在野黨作為監督者的角色，冒著重大政治風險，接受蔡英文平起平坐的挑戰。所幸馬英九在那場辯論中略占上風，否則這種「期望的落差」更不知將惡化至何種田地？

那場辯論會，社會視聽關注的是雙英臨場表現的高下，但馬英九自己所期望者，卻應在能否取得國人的理解與信任。馬英九在這場辯論會中的表現顯示，他是認真的，用功的，誠懇的，他也知道其中必有「不入虎穴」的風險，但他更知道他所面對的是必須將台灣「起死回生」的工程。蔡英文在辯論會中未以「傾中賣台」指責馬英九，由於那只是綠營的街頭運動語言，在辯論會中未必站得住腳；其實，馬英九最重要的人格特質，也許正是對中華民國的忠愛，這是他的兩岸政策之所以能獲得多數國人支持與信任的重要理由。尤其，若非馬英九，其他台灣政治領袖在兩岸間不可能有此種人格資產。

馬英九自己想作一個怎樣的總統？他也許不想成為視聽的明星，希望國家及政府的一切皆能按公義及法制運作；在兩岸政務上，他也希望能務實進行，不願見將兩岸議題當作台灣內部政治鬥爭的民粹槓桿。這樣的風格，與國人的期待是有落差的。總統豈能站在「第二線」？陳聰明豈能不下台？扁案為何遲未定讞？立法院的多數黨是幹什麼的？為何不會見達賴？為什麼一連輸掉幾場選舉？為何對富人減稅？為何ECFA傷害了弱勢產業？為什麼說心裡毛毛的？

馬英九就任總統兩年來，台灣所處的大環境是：中國崛起、美國式微、台灣內部撕裂、政府人才斷層、公義沉淪、扁案翻騰、國際經濟風暴迭生、東協加Ｎ浮現、台灣經濟地位面臨邊緣化危機……。這似乎已非「民主之父」、「台灣之子」之類政治梟雄興風作浪的時際，而應當有一位降低政治姿態，不玩弄民粹手段，可以在國際間、兩岸間及台灣內部取得信任的政治領袖，帶領台灣走出困局。馬英九似乎視此為他的歷史角色，台灣目前這個局面，不能再成為任何政治明星的民粹舞台，也唯有壓低個人角色的政治領袖，始有可能給兩岸帶來療傷止痛、回歸和平與理智的機會。

然而，經過兩年來「角色期望落差」的衝撞，馬英九可謂傷痕累累，民眾亦對他失望已甚；如今，馬英九幾乎已完全站在「第一線」上，且也愈來愈向「庶民政治」趨近。而雙英辯論在未來也許可視為「角色期望落差」的修補模式：馬英九期待的是政策思維取得理解與信任，但國人可能更在乎辯論演出高下的民粹效果。

台灣的內外處境極度嚴峻，馬總統的表現亦繼續要在尖銳的顯微鏡、放大鏡及哈哈鏡下接受考驗。他須留意一句「毛毛的」受到質疑，更須慎審維持他在兩岸之間無可取代的受到信任的角色。馬英九誠然有諸多可受批評之處，施政表現更是捉襟見肘，但回顧過去這兩年，及瞻望未來幾年，他仍應是在當前時際出任中華民國總統的正確人選。