Political Appointees Must Set An Example by Stepping Down

Political Appointees Must Set An Example by Stepping DownChina Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 20, 2010

Judicial Yuan President Lai Ying-chao submitted his resignation several days ago, because three High Court judges were suspected of accepting bribes. Lai submitted his resignation because he must assume responsibility for the lapse in judicial discipline.

Some people say Lai should not resign. They say that the High Court judges may have taken bribes, but what does that have to do with the Judicial Yuan president himself? Some see the issue through partisan eyes. They accuse President Ma of forcing out the sole remaining yuan president appointed by a DPP administration. Some say Lai should stick to his guns, and see judicial reform through to the end. We cannot agree with these justifications. Officials today willing to resign their positions out of a sense of responsibility are as rare as hen's teeth. Judicial reform requires capable leadership. But a sense of honor is as important as ability. The political atmosphere is as important as judicial integrity. As we take stock of officialdom on Taiwan, we feel his resignation deserves commendation.

The integrity of political appointees has undergone a swift decline. Too many unspeakable scandals have erupted. Take Chen Tsung-ming for example. He too is part of the justice system. He had the effrontery to dine with Huang Fang-yen, a possible accomplice in the Chen Shui-bian corruption and money-laundering case. He refused to take a stand on the Discretionary Fund issue. Talking heads blasted him, but he refused to resign. He justified himself by repeating that "I must stay on to finish the job." Only when the Control Yuan threatened to impeach him, did Chen Tsung-ming feel obligated to resign. The rumors and controversies surrounding Chen Tsung-ming relate to him personally. The current judicial crisis involves only High Court judges, not Lai Ying-chao specifically. Compare the two justice system officials. The difference between the two should immediately become apparent.

Forty years ago, during the Chiang Ching-kuo era, a Suao Harbor fishing boat sank, drowning dozens of students. Then Minister of Education Chiang Yan-shi assumed responsibility and resigned. When a building on the Yuan Feng Senior High School campus collapsed and crushed several students, Huang Kuen-hui, then Bureau of Education chief also resigned. When aircraft belonging to the state-run China Airlines crashed, the Minister of Transportation was forced to resign. Insiders often joke that Lien Chan was lucky. When others served as Minister of Transportation, they were forced to step down in response to air disasters. But Lien Chan experienced smooth sailing all the way, For three long years, not one air disaster occurred. Air disasters are of course affected in part by airline safety procedures. But luck may play an important part as well. When political appointees are held responsible even for random events such as these, then of course Lai Ying-chao must be held responsible for judicial discipline. Of course Chen Tsung-ming must be held responsible for his personal misconduct. It is only right.

It is universally accepted that political appointees should assume responsibility for their policy failures. But just how does one define "policy failure?" If one is unable to implement a policy, or if a policy that has been implemented leads to disaster, officials can always blame bad weather, overseas economic factors, financial shocks, even sunspots. Allow us to use a metaphor to explain what we mean by responsibility. Think of a national government as a private company. A nation's political leader is the company manager. A nation's citizens are the company's shareholders. A whole range factors will determine the success or failure of the company, including a considerable element of luck. But regardless, the company's business manager must assume responsibility for the company's performance. Whether he turns out to be a hero or a zero will ultimately depend upon the success or failure of the company's operations. He cannot blame anyone else. A company manager must assume final responsibility. The same is true of a national government's political appointees.

During Chen Shui-bian's eight years in power, political appointees came and went regularly. Whether they remained in office or were given the boot depended entirely on President Chen's changing moods. Neither ability nor integrity mattered. Political appointees would pray desperately that nothing went wrong on their watch. They were paralyzed, afraid to do anything that might rock the boat. Two years ago, with the change in ruling parties, everyone assumed that the bureaucratic mindset that prevailed under the previous regime were a thing of the past. But during the past two years, cabinet members in more than one municipal administration have left observers dumbfounded. Apparently what the Ma administration wants from officials more than anything else is obedience. It care nothing about an official's judgment or ability. When problems surfaced, high-ranking officials with the Presidential Office and Executive Yuan find it hard to blame cabinet members, because cabinet members refused to do anything but carry out orders from their superiors. Given such an atmosphere, it is utterly unrealistic to expect political appointees to demonstrate backbone and behave responsibly.

Yuan President Lai Ying-chao assumed responsibility and resigned. Did he do so to bring the Republic of China's dysfunctional officialdom out of its slump? Whatever his motives, he set a positive example. Will judicial discipline be restored as a result of the current scandal? It is hard to say. But Lai's bold move deserves praise.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2010.07.20
社論－政務官請辭下台是負責的典範
本報訊

司法院長賴英照日前因三位高院法官之涉嫌受賄而請辭獲准。賴院長之所以請辭，當然是要為司法官風紀之不彰而負政治責任。

對賴的請辭動作，社會有些許的不贊成之聲；有人認為高等法院法官涉貪與司法院長無涉、有人從黨同伐異的角度，認為是馬總統逼走了民進黨執政期間獲聘的僅存院長、有人認為賴英照應該堅守崗位，切實做好司法風氣的整頓。我們對於以上這三種反對賴先生辭官的說法，都礙難同意。相反的，在當今台灣官場，能夠以辭官表達責任立場的，確是鳳毛麟角。司法改革確實需要能幹的首長帶隊，但是政府首長的羞恥心與能力同等重要，政壇的整體風氣與法官的清廉風紀也不分軒輊，但是觀諸台灣官場生態，我們認為辭官是最值得肯定的行動。

曾幾何時，台灣的政務官風骨已經是江河日下，有太多不可聞問的事例。就拿同屬司法界的檢察總長陳聰明來說吧，這位總長毫不避諱地與扁案關係人黃芳彥餐敘，不對首長特別費的分歧局勢表態，被媒體名嘴按三餐罵，但說不辭職就不辭職，永遠是以「留下來把事情做好」為藉口，一直要到陳聰明受到監察院彈劾，才不得不辭職。陳聰明的傳言與風波都是與自己有關，但此次的司法風波卻只是高院法官，而不是賴英照自己的問題。兩相比較，兩位司法人物之風骨高下立判。

在四十年前蔣經國時代，蘇澳漁船沉沒淹死了數十位學生，當時的教育部長蔣彥士就負責請辭。豐原高中建築倒塌壓死了若干學生，教育局長黃昆輝也請辭。此外，只要國營航空公司摔了架飛機，交通部長就得請辭下台。坊間經常開玩笑說連戰「好命」，別人做交通部長常因飛安事故下台，但連戰卻為官一帆風順，三年交長全無事故。摔飛機背後有飛安管理，但也有更多的運氣。連這麼樣隨機的事情政務官都得負起廣義的政治責任，那麼賴英照為司法風紀負責，陳聰明為自己的行事風格負責，當然是天經地義的舉措。

政務官要為政策成敗負責，這是大家都接受的觀念。但是這「成敗」二字要如何詮釋，就有相當的詮釋空間。在政策推動失敗甚或出現災難時，官員總是可以把原因推給天候風雨、國外經濟、金融衝擊、甚至太陽黑子等。但是我們用一個比喻，就能了解其中的責任分際。國家就像是一家公司，國家政務官就像是公司經理人，而人民則是公司的股東。影響公司成敗興衰的因素很多，背後也有不少的運氣成分，但公司經理人是營業績效的概括承受者，只能以最終成敗論英雄，不能再怪罪其他。公司經理人要負起最後責任，而國家政務官要負政策責任，也是同樣的道理。

在陳水扁執政八年期間，政務官五日京兆，都得看大老闆的喜怒定去留，能力與操守都變得不重要。斯時也，政務官只求不出亂子，完全不敢有積極作為。前年政黨輪替之後，原本大家以為能讓官場文化耳目一新，但兩年下來，若干「市府團隊」閣員的表現，也讓外界瞠目結舌。馬政府對於官員的要求，似乎是「服從」重於一切，不在乎官員的判斷與能力。一旦出了問題，府院高層也就不便對閣員多所責備，因為他們都只是府院意志的貫徹者。在這樣的氣氛之下，要期待政務官有勇於負責的風骨，恐怕是奢望了。

賴英照院長負責辭職，無論如何是為台灣萎靡不振的官場生態，立下了一個典範。司法風紀能不能因此次弊案而脫胎換骨，現在還很難說，但賴院長的明快表態，無論如何是要給予肯定的。