Ministry Blunders Undermine Re-election Campaign

Ministry Blunders Undermine Re-election Campaign
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 10, 2011

Summary: During an election campaign, one need not gain ground. But one must never mindlessly lose ground. Recently the Executive Yuan committed one blunder after another. Premier Wu Den-yih is apoplectic. While he puts out fires in the front, more fires break out in the rear. How can he possibly run a successful re-election campaign under such circumstances? Wu is a vice presidential candidate. Making sure that all the hatches are battened down is his responsibility. After Wu's anger dies down the first thing he must do is identify the problem. Why have so many ministries committed so many blunders? Why has the cabinet been unable to put a cap on all these blunders? If this continues, the DPP will win without lifting a finger. KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou's bid for re-election will be sabotaged by his own people.

Full Text Below:

During an election campaign, one need not gain ground. But one must never mindlessly lose ground. Recently the Executive Yuan committed one blunder after another. Premier Wu Den-yih is apoplectic. While he puts out fires in the front, more fires break out in the rear. How can he possibly run a successful re-election campaign under such circumstances? Wu is a vice presidential candidate. Making sure that all the hatches are battened down is his responsibility. After Wu's anger dies down the first thing he must do is identify the problem. Why have so many ministries committed so many blunders? Why has the cabinet been unable to put a cap on all these blunders? If this continues, the DPP will win without lifting a finger. KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou's bid for re-election will be sabotaged by his own people.

Some civil servants are troublesome. Some Executive Yuan officials have doubts about them. Just how many of these troublesome civil servants are opposition "moles?" Their suspicions are not entirely without justification. The Council of Agriculture recently canceled milk subsidies to poor children. But less than 24 hours later, it reversed its policy. Council of Agriculture Chairman Preston Chen said the subsidies were never canceled in the first place. Official documents were leaked even before they were submitted to the Livestock Production Section for approval. Deputy Chairman Hu Hsing-hua said the auditors considered this a social welfare measure that should be dealt with by social welfare agencies. But until an agreement can be reached, the COA is handling the matter.

The explanations offered by the chairman and deputy chairman left people baffled. First of all, the subsidies have been in place for some time. The auditors never objected to them before. Why reassign responsibility suddenly, just before the general election? Secondly, the documents were not even submitted to the chairman. Would a section chief really have the authority to make a public announcement? Would the chairman sit idly by and not intervene? One can scrimp everywhere. The only place one cannot scrimp is on little children, especially when they are underprivileged children. Does any civil servant in the Council of Agriculture not understand this? Once the matter blew up, the Council of Agriculture rushed to provide free milk to children, only to invite ridicule for its policy flip-flop. Why would it invite such abuse upon itself? What was the real motive?

The Council of Agriculture was not alone. The Ministry of Education prohibited romantic relationships between teachers and students. It prohibited cram schools from recruiting children under six. It prohibited smokers from becoming school principals. It made three blunders in a row, every one of them mindless. Strictly speaking, the Ministry of Education did not prohibit romantic relations between teachers and students. What it prohibited was teachers preying on students. Teachers who prey on students are investigated and prosecuted promptly under existing laws. Did the Ministry of Education really need this additional provision? A piece of paper did nothing to prosecute teachers who prey on students. It merely impugned the dignity of the teaching profession as a whole.

Children under six should not be prematurely subjected to the cram school environment. They should not be subjected to inordinate academic pressure. But this is the parents' business. Why must the Ministry of Education intervene? Why provoke parents who want their children to become movers and shakers? Why provoke the cram school industry? What was the real motive?

Not permitting smokers to become school principals is even more absurd. Anti-smoking measures on Taiwan are strict. Most schools have smoke-free campuses. No matter how addicted a school principle might be to tobacco, he is not about to defy the law by smoking where he shouldn't. If he did, he would photographed violating the smoking ban and reported by students or other teachers. The Ministry of Education would not even need to investigate. The principal would not have the cheek to stay on. One aspect of the provision is especially pointless. The prohibition against smokers becoming school principals was instituted in May. So why was it announced six months before the election? Was someone deliberately making trouble for Minister of Education Wu Ching-ji? Or more to the point, was someone deliberately making trouble for the KMT and the Ma/Wu ticket?

In addition to the Council of Agriculture and the Ministry of Education, we have the Council for Cultural Affairs (CCA). The CCA deftly organized over 300 events for the Republic of China centennial celebration, without so much as a hiccup. Yet it created serious problems for the National Day "Dreamer" musical production. The arts community blasted it. Netizens initiated an online petition drive demanding a refund. Whether the Dreamer was a good or bad production is one thing. Whether corruption was involved is another. The CCA was charged with producing the Republic of China centennial activities. It must respect the creators of cultural and creative content. It must not permit officials to write their own script. Doing so would lead to "painting by the numbers."

The budget for this National Day musical was substantial. Culture and creativity are priceless. From this perspective, one cannot say that the production was not worth the price tag. The problem was that the 200 million dollar budget was spent largely on stage props. Two days later, these stage props were burned. This was a bitter pill for the arts community to swallow.

The CCA wanted a musical production different from any in the past. That was understandable. The musical production was one of the two highlights of the centennial celebration. It is hard to find fault with the theater group contract awards. The New Year's Eve fireworks contract was awarded to Lin Hwai-min of the the Cloud Gate Dance Theater. Eleven other contracts were awarded. The CCA used open bidding and contract awarding procedures. Accusations of corruption are probably baseless. But was it really wise to hold a musical or theatrical performance outdoors? The venue consisted of nothing more than bare concrete. Was that really appropriate? That must be considered. CCA Chairman Emile Sheng feels aggrieved. But perhaps he should apologize for his lack of professionalism regarding the performing arts.

Political appointees have been blasted. The civil servants charged with the production may not have the proper attitude. But ministry heads cannot shirk responsibility. They could not even control their own subordinates. What right do they have to talk about management and leadership ability? Once a policy has been announced, the ministry head must assume responsibility. Beside, these ministry heads have been in office for over three years. They are familiar with the system of seniority. Yet they were led around by the nose by their subordinates. They can hardly blame "moles." They can only blame themselves.

部會頻凸槌，這仗怎麼打？

2011-11-10 中國時報

打選戰不怕沒加分，只怕沒頭沒腦失分，最近行政院各部會頻頻凸槌，行政院長吳敦義氣到爆，前線打仗後院失火，這仗怎麼打啊？身為副總統參選人，栓緊內閣螺絲正是吳揆的責任。在盛怒之後，最重要的是搞清楚問題所在，為什麼各部會輪流出包，頗有禁之不絕之勢？長此以往，不勞民進黨費力，國民黨總統參選人馬英九的連任之途，就被自己人給搞垮了。

政院流傳一種說法：公務員難纏，只差沒問各部會到底有多少「臥底」的？這個說法也不是沒有邏輯可循，以農委會最近爆出貧童鮮奶補助取消爭議，廿四小時政策大轉彎，農委會主委陳武雄說根本沒有取消的問題，這紙公文還沒上呈就被承辦的「家畜生產科」給先公布了。副主委胡興華的說法是審計單位認為這是社會福利措施，應由社福單位處理，但在未達共識前，仍由農委會想辦法支應。

正副主委的說法都讓人百思不得其解，第一，此一補助事項實施也有一段時間了，過去審計單位沒意見，怎麼突如其來在大選前要變更預算支出單位？第二，連公文都未上呈主委，承辦科哪來這麼大權限先對外公布？難不成主委只會當官不會管嗎？什麼錢都能省，就是不能省到小孩的錢，何況接受補助者多是弱勢兒童，農委會任何公務員連這點常識都沒有嗎？事情鬧大之後，農委會緊急加碼幼童鮮奶福利，還是惹來政策急轉彎之譏，何苦來哉？

不只農委會，教育部從禁止師生戀、禁止補習班收六歲以下兒童，到抽菸不能當校長，更是連三錯！而且錯的沒頭沒腦。嚴格來說，教育部禁止的不是師生戀而是狼師條款，但是，校園有狼師依現行法令得立刻究辦，需要教育部多此一舉嗎？一紙公文沒辦到狼師，卻讓多數正派老師感覺尊嚴受損。

六歲以下幼童確實不宜太早進入補習的世界，承擔過重的學習壓力，但是，這理應是家長該管的事，教育部何須插手？無端惹惱望子女成龍鳳的父母，和廣大的補教業，不是無聊嗎？

校長禁菸令就更絕了，台灣菸害防治相當嚴格，遑論多數學校都已實施校園禁菸，校長菸癮再大，大概也沒這麼大膽子敢在全校師生面前試法，一個鬧不好，被師生偷拍檢舉，不必教育部查辦，校長大概都沒臉面做下去；最莫名其妙的是，這紙禁菸公文早在五月發出，早不曝光、晚不曝光，偏偏在將近半年後的大選前曝光，很難不讓人懷疑這到底是找教育部長吳清基的麻煩？還是找國民黨「馬吳配」的麻煩？

農委會、教育部之外，原本籌辦三百多項民國一百年活動一帆風順的文建會，竟在國慶晚會《夢想家》上栽了個大跟頭，不但藝文界批評聲浪洶湧，網路更有人發起連署還錢活動。《夢想家》好不好看是一回事，有沒有弊案又是一回事，對執行民國百年活動的文建會而言，文創內容必須尊重創作者，總不能由官方自訂劇本，這不成了樣板戲？

這齣國慶音樂劇金額相對龐大，從文創無價的角度，好戲也不能說不值這個價碼，問題是兩億多預算多半擺在舞台相關的硬體設施，演出兩天加上排演場一次燒完，叫藝文界不心痛也難。

文建會想要做一個不同於以往的晚會可以理解，晚會又是民國一百年系列活動中兩大重點之一，以資格標指定劇團，亦難謂不妥當，就像跨年煙火表演指定的是雲門林懷民一般，除此之外的其他十一個舞台硬體標案，文建會皆以公開競標與評選程序處理，要說有弊案，大概不至於，但是，音樂劇或舞台劇適不適合室外演出？尤其在除了水泥之外什麼設備都沒有的圓滿劇場是否允當？卻不能不考慮。文建會主委盛治仁滿腹委屈之餘，或者還真不能不為自己缺乏藝文表演的專業說句「抱歉」。

政務官被爭議問題罵到滿頭包，就算承辦公務員心態可議，部會首長都沒有卸責的理由，連自己屬下都壓不住陣腳，談什麼管理和領導能力？公文出門首長就要負責，何況首長們都是已經就任三年多、甚至在行政系統歷練已久的老資格了，還會被自己的屬下整得團團轉，不能怪「臥底」，只能怪自己。