Taiwan's Dilemma in Governance

Taiwan's Dilemma in Governance
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 31, 2011

Summary: Seoul, South Korea, recently held a public referendum. The issue was whether to provide free lunches to all elementary, junior high, and senior high students. But the voter turnout was too low. The numbers were below the required legal threshold. Therefore the referendum was declared null and void. Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon wanted to exclude students from wealthy families from the free lunch programs. He swore that if the referendum failed to pass, he would resign as mayor. The failed referendum was tantamount to a vote of no confidence in his administration. Will he carry out his threat by actually resigning? The question has provoked considerable concern and debate In South Korea.

Full Text below:

Seoul, South Korea, recently held a public referendum. The issue was whether to provide free lunches to all elementary, junior high, and senior high students. But the voter turnout was too low. The numbers were below the required legal threshold. Therefore the referendum was declared null and void. Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon wanted to exclude students from wealthy families from the free lunch programs. He swore that if the referendum failed to pass, he would resign as mayor. The failed referendum was tantamount to a vote of no confidence in his administration. Will he carry out his threat by actually resigning? The question has provoked considerable concern and debate In South Korea.

According to the foreign press, Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon's political achievements are remarkable. He is highly popular. He was seen as a possible contender in next year's presidential election. He was seen as a successor to the highly popular Lee Myung Bak. According to reports, he demanded a public referendum to exclude students from wealthy families from the free lunch programs. The public however, was unmoved. As a result, he found himself in a dilemma.

Imagine this happening on Taiwan. Matters would have been completely different. Initially the Seoul City Council wanted to include students from wealthy families in the free lunch programs. Had the same situation occurred on Taiwan, the ruling administration would have considered the matter briefly, then increased spending. It would have ignored fairness and justice. At most it would have issued a few talking points, weighing some of the pros and cons. But as soon as the City Council reached a decision, the mayor would most likely go along to get along. The mayor would be unlikely to demand a public referendum. In the event a referendum was held, he would be unlikely to bet his future on the outcome. He would avoid creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Officials on Taiwan are afraid to take responsible for their policies. They refuse to do so. Suppose opposition city council members advocated making students from wealthy families eligible for the free lunch programs? The ruling administration would immediately jump on the populist bandwagon. It would try to prevent the opposition from claiming all the credit. It might even engage in a bidding war with the opposition. Every time a general election rolls around, the ruling and opposition parties on Taiwan try to outbid each other. Subsidies for elderly farmers are a perfect example. Ruling and opposition politicians on Taiwan watched as Oh Se-hoon openly advocated excluding students from wealthy families from the free lunch programs. He even demanded a public referendum, and put his political future on the line. They must have assumed he was foolish beyond belief, or harbored suicidal tendencies.

Consider another political entity -- Singapore. Singapore recently held its first presidential election in 18 years, Political veteran Tony Tan Keng Yam ran on the ruling People's Action Party ticket. He was widely considered a shoo-in, Who knew a recount would be required? In the end he won, but only by a narrow 0.34% margin. Ever since Singapore's founding and independence, the People's Action Party's political record has been outstanding. During past general elections, it invariably won a clear majority in parliament. Singapore has yet to undergo a ruling party change. By virtue of its brilliant record of accomplishments, the ruling PAP has maintained a firm grip on power. But during this May's parliamentary elections, the People's Action Party's share of the vote fell below 60%. Singaporean citizens are experiencing a change of heart. The president may be merely a figurehead. But Tony Tan was the ruling party's candidate. He held important government positions. He is a former Deputy Prime Minister. Yet he nearly met his Waterloo. Singaporean citizens want change. The pressure for change has been building for some time.

Over the years, Singapore has weathered all manner of international crises. It has survived. It has flourished. It has won international acclaim. It has even become a model emulated by both sides of the Taiwan Strait. But look closer. Behind Singapore's brilliant record, Singaporean citizens feel like sacrificial martyrs. The cost of living and the cost of housing are sky high. In recent years, Singapore has vigorously recruited high-end international talent. This has created a brain drain from Taiwan. Taiwan has been dwarfed, unable to compete. But these immigrants from Taiwan have taken jobs from Singaporeans. The resentment was palpable during the recent election.

Singapore's manner of governance is highly patriarchal. Its policies and its governance are closely scrutinized. Japanese-American scholar Frances Fukuyama is the author of "The End of History." Recently he delivered a speech on Taiwan. He said that democratic development in East Asia lacks the rule of law and societal constraints on governmental power. Nevertheless policies have been implemented with rapidity. By contrast, societal constraints on governmental power in Europe and the United States are excessive. This is detrimental to the implementation of policy, and undermines government efficiency.

Fukuyama considers both the Chinese mainland and Singapore performance-oriented governments. But they lack societal constraints on governmental power. Governmental complacency on the Chinese mainland has led to deep rooted problems. These problems, such as problems with the high-speed rail system, have surfaced one by one. Societal constraints on governmental power have gradually surfaced in Singapore. Two general elections have revealed grievances underlying the government's brilliant record. What about on Taiwan? The government on Taiwan is not as efficient as the government on the Chinese mainland or the government on Singapore. Political appointees on Taiwan take less political responsibility for their policies than their counterparts in South Korea. In his speech, Professor Fukuyama said some democratic nations hold free and democratic elections. But their elected officials ignore the interests of the people. Instead, they cause problems. Was he talking about the government on Taiwan? Is Taiwan so wanting that all we can take pride in is our free elections?

他山之石看台灣的治理困境
2011-08-31 中國時報

南韓首都首爾不久前舉辦「應否全面向小中高學生供應免費營養午餐」的市民公投，由於投票率過低，未達可以開票的門檻，宣告公投無效，從而首爾市議會先前通過取消免費營養午餐的排富條款決議正式生效。而強烈反對取消排富條款的首爾市長吳世勳，在啟動公投之前聲稱一旦公投失敗，將辭去市長職務，於今公投失敗形同被市民投下不信任票，未來是否履行承諾辭職，在南韓引起關注和廣泛議論。

根據外電報導，吳世勳擔任首爾市長政績卓著、民望極高，原被看好可望於明年底的南韓總統選舉時，成為接替李明博的熱門人選。詎料因為執意就學生營養午餐是否應取消排富條款，率爾發動市民公投，結果市民不領情，也讓自己陷入進退失據的窘境。

檢視此一新聞事件，如果發生在台灣，顯然將會出現完全不同的景況。首先，在首爾市議會倡議要取消排富條款時，如果換做在台灣，主政者即使考量因而將增加財政支出，以及有違公平正義原則，但充其量只是發表說帖剖析其利弊後遺。而一旦市議會做成決議，通常則是表示尊重，並不至於進一步啟動市民公投。而萬一真的訴諸公投，也絕不敢以個人的去留為訴求，以免弄假成真自陷絕境。

台灣的官場除了不敢與不願公開表態為政策負責之外，以這個案例來看，最可能的場景應該是當市議會的在野議員倡議取消排富時，執政者面對此一民粹訴求立即應和，以免功勞丰采被在野黨獨佔。更甚者還可能出現競相比價的現象，台灣朝野政黨每逢大選就競相喊價加碼老農年金正是此一寫照。因此，台灣的朝野政客看到吳世勳竟然公開反對取消排富條款，還為此啟動市民公投，以及和個人的去留綁在一起，一定認為是愚不可及的自殺行為。

把焦點移轉到另一個景場，新加坡日前舉行18年來的首次總統投票選舉，代表執政黨人民行動黨的政壇長青樹陳慶炎，在廣被看好穩穩當選的情況下，沒想到最後必須經過重新計票，才以0.34％的微小得票差距僥倖勝選。如所周知，新加坡從獨立建國以來，人民行動黨以優異的政績表現，在歷次的大選中無不囊括國會絕大多數席位，而從來不曾出現過政黨輪替。然而這種靠亮麗政績表現穩穩掌握執政優勢的榮景，在今年5月間國會選舉人民行動黨得票率跌破60％時，已經呈現星國國民人心思變的徵兆。而這次的總統改選，雖然總統只是虛位元首，但執政黨所推出的候選人，且是歷任政府重要職位的前副總理陳慶炎，竟然差點就慘遭滑鐵盧，顯示星國社會人心思變的能量已經蓄積到相當可觀的水位。

從表象來看，星國這些年來在面對國際情勢一波波的危機衝擊下，都能安然度過且表現亮眼，不只贏得國際讚賞，並且也成為海峽兩岸政府競相學習、取經的對象。然而深入分析，星國這種亮麗的表現，星國人民卻有成為犧牲者的感受，包括對物價、房價上漲的怨言滿天，又如星國近年大力延攬國際高端人才，使台灣出現人才外流現象並在人才的爭取上相形見絀，然而這些外來移民形同搶走星國人民的工作機會，這股民怨也在此次選舉中表露無遺。

新加坡的國家治理，由於具有相當程度的父權領導特質，政策推動和治理效能備受矚目。曾發表「歷史的終結」理論的日裔美籍學者法蘭西斯.福山，最近來台公開演講即指出東亞民主發展的過程雖欠缺法治與社會制衡力，但政策推動與落實快速，相形之下歐美國家的社會制衡力過大，反而不利政策推動，影響政府效能。

儘管包括大陸新加坡都可歸類為福山口中的效能型政府，但社會制衡力的不足，在大陸使得自我感覺良好的高鐵系統深層問題逐一浮現，在新加坡甦醒的社會制衡力也透過兩次大選宣洩亮麗政績表現下的深層民怨。而台灣的情況又是怎樣呢？論治理效能比不上大陸與新加坡、論政務官為政策負責的責任政治又不如南韓。福山教授在演講中點出某些民主國家，僅把自由民主選舉當成程序，選出的政治人物也不考量人民利益，反而會造成問題。他說的是否就是台灣的寫照？台灣真是窮的只剩下選舉了嗎？