The Ma Administration's Chronic Inability to Defend Its Policies

The Ma Administration's Chronic Inability to Defend Its Policies
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 4, 2012

Summary: There is no such thing as perfection. There is only second best. This is true for everything, from the capital gains tax to cross-Strait policy. A general election killed the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant. If one can destroy the future of the entire petrochemical industry in one fell swoop, one has not even achieved second best. Perfection requires no defense. Under a democracy, it is only the more controversial "second best" policies that require a ruling administration able to defend its policies. Does the Ma administration really not understand this simple truth?

Full Text below:

One of the Ma Ying-jeou administration's most serious problems, is its inability to mount a compelling defense of administration policy.

This was true for the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant and the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant. It is true for the U.S. beef imports as well. Much is at stake in these cases. But they were each dogged by controversy. In cases such as the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant, the Ma administration was under re-election pressure. It was both unable and afraid to speak up on behalf of its policies. It simply caved in. This led to a major change in the direction of the petrochemical industry. Was the policy not worth defending? Or were its defenders merely incompetent. Did they deal their policy a death blow? Some cases, such as the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant and US beef imports, have been hashed over god knows how many times. Logically speaking, each time the policy was rehashed, the Ma administration should have learned from the experience. It should have sharpened its communication skills. But oddly enough past experience has never made the Ma administration more adept at defending its policies. Just the opposite. It merely becomes more fractious and disoriented. The ruling administration has never been able to influence public opinion. It has never learned how to speak out on behalf of its policies.

The connection between the Taipei MRT Danshui and Zhonghe Lines comes to mind. In fact, the decision to make the two lines independent was made 20 years ago. But the administration failed to use the intervening time to communicate with the public. It failed to use the time to convert the the public. Instead, it chose a sensitive moment during the presidential election to make the surprise announcement that the two lines would remain independent. Its manner of explanation was inept. The public was outraged. The Taipei Rapid Transit Corporation (TRTC) immediately backed down.

Following the election, the TRTC announced that the decision to keep the two lines independent had already been made in September. This time however, it made clear that transferring from one MRT line to another would be made on the same level. In other words, one would step off one train and onto another from the same platform. The entire process would take a mere 15 seconds. The TRTC took the initiative to provide diagrams explaining the "same level transfer" process, After the TRTC communicated with the public this way, public anger diminished. MRT riders now feel that despite dissatisfaction they consider the solution acceptable.

The administration made three mistakes in the Taipei MRT case. One, it failed to use the time available to explain its position. Two, it failed to appreciate the political sensitivity of the timing of its announcement. Three, it pleaded congestion at the Taipei Main Station instead of informing the public that changing trains at the Guting Station involved a convenient 15 second "same level transfer." It piled one blunder on top of another. All in all, it betrayed a total inability to defend administration policy.

Now consider the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant. Admittedly, nuclear power generation is long-term energy policy. The ruling administration pays lip service to a "nuclear-free homeland" yet is unable to deal with the consequences of phasing out nuclear power. The administration has been unable to instill public trust in its nuclear energy policy. Again, it has betrayed a total inability to defend administration policy. The public is of different minds about nuclear energy policy. As a result the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant has been caught in a storm of controversy. The issues have become increasingly muddied. This is even more surprising. After all, the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant predicament was clearly the fault of Chen Shui-bian and the DPP. Yet the current administration is mute on the matter. The administration is unable to communicate with the public, either as a expert on nuclear energy or as a ruling party responding to opposition sniping. Yet again, it betrayed a total inability to defend administration policy.

U.S. beef imports is political football that gets kicked around repeatedly. The administration is unwilling to reveal its own policy position. It adopts a "we have no preconceptions" and "we have no timetable" position to remain far from the political flames. This approach to a raging controversy may seem "democratic." But it amounts to populist pandering. It is not an approach able to encourage consensus.

In fact, the Ma administration has long endeavored to conceal its position on U.S. beef imports. Otherwise why would it have muddied the waters as much as it has? The Ma administration should at least participate in policy formulation. It can hardly pretend to be a disinterested outsider auditing the debate. It must acknowledge clearly its policy preference, Instead it deliberately adopts an "everything will be determined by the will of the people" posture. If the administration waits until public opinion is clearly polarized, it will only be more difficult to resume the role of leader or arbiter.

Politics is the art of the possible. Perfection is something one can hope for but not expect. Political reality is often the pursuit of second best. One might even say that there is no such thing as perfection in a pluralistic society, All policies contain some defects. That is why a ruling administration must be able to defend its own policies.

There is no such thing as perfection. There is only second best. This is true for everything, from the capital gains tax to cross-Strait policy. A general election killed the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Plant. If one can destroy the future of the entire petrochemical industry in one fell swoop, one has not even achieved second best. Perfection requires no defense. Under a democracy, it is only the more controversial "second best" policies that require a ruling administration able to defend its policies. Does the Ma administration really not understand this simple truth?

馬團隊重症：沒有為政策辯護的能力
【聯合報╱社論】 2012.03.04

沒有為政策辯護的能力，一向是馬英九團隊的重症。

國光石化如此，核四如此，美牛也是如此。這類案子皆事關重大，卻極具爭議性。有些案子，如國光石化，馬政府在大選壓力下，無能也不敢為政策辯護，遂以棄守收場，貿然就將整個石化產業來個大轉彎。這究竟是「政策」不值得維護，或只因無能辯護，而葬送了「政策」？另一些案子，如核四及美牛，不知吵了多少次，照理說，每吵一次馬政府的因應及溝通能力皆應有所長進，但奇怪的是，卻從來未見馬團隊在下一次的辯護能力比上一次有什麼精進，反而是愈吵愈胡塗，主政者始終不能發生影響輿論的作用，以致無法建立起為政策辯護的話語權。

台北捷運淡水線、中和線分流一案，即是一個眼前的例子。其實，兩線分流原是二十幾年前就存在的規劃，但主事者卻未能善用長期漸進「循循善誘」的手法與民眾溝通，而竟選擇在總統大選的敏感時刻，以「突襲」的方式宣布考慮「分流」，且在說明的技巧上又相當拙劣。結果，被「民意」一陣猛轟，北捷立即縮了回去。

到了選後，北捷日前再次宣布，兩線確定於九月分流。這一次，特別強調只須「水平轉乘」，亦即下車後在同一月台走到對面列車上車即可，只消十五秒鐘；北捷且主動提供車站場景圖，說明「水平轉乘」的實況。此種溝通方式推出後，可以感受到「民意」已逐漸轉為「雖不滿意／但可以接受」。

北捷分流案的教訓顯示：一誤於未能善用長期的緩衝時間，二錯在不識宣布時間的敏感性，三敗於溝通手法只強調台北車站擠，而不知凸顯古亭站「十五秒水平轉乘」的便利。這一誤二錯三敗，總而言之，皆在「沒有為政策辯護的能力」。

再說核四。無可諱言，核能是長期能源政策，主政者口裡說「非核家園」，卻無法承擔廢核的後果；但是，長期以來，當局也未能在核能政策上建立穩定的社會信任與支持，這正是「沒有為政策辯護的能力」。因而，既然整體核能政策亦無社會共識，像核四這樣的個案，也就陷於議論的漩渦，愈攪愈渾。更奇怪的是，核四今日困境明明是陳水扁及民進黨所造成；但馬政府如今面對民進黨百般將核四問題政治化，竟亦儼如無言以對。這無論從核能專業的社會溝通能力看，或從政治角力言，皆是「沒有為政策辯護的能力」。

美牛也是已多次端到檯面的爭議。主政者不願揭露自己的政策觀點，而想用「沒有預設立場」、「沒有時間表」來遠離砲火；於是使得激烈的流派爭議看似十分「民主」，卻大多流於「民粹」，一直無法形成任何交集。

其實，馬政府對美牛的政策傾向是欲蓋彌彰的，否則何必推動這攪動一池渾水的辯論？既如此，馬政府的角色至少應當是政策形成的參與者，不應故做只是傾聽民意的局外人狀。應知，明明有政策傾向，又偏偏做出一切由「民意決定」的姿態，等到民意的撕裂對立愈來愈明顯，主政者將不易再回到主導者或仲裁者的角色。

政治是一種「可能的藝術」，由於「至善」（The Best）可望不可即，現實政治便往往只是一種追求「亞善」（Second Best）的工程。甚至可以說，多元社會中其實絕無「至善」的政策，一切政策皆有相對的缺陷，因此也就更需要有「為政策辯護的能力」。

從兩岸政策到是否徵收資本利得稅，皆只有「亞善」，沒有「至善」。一場大選否決了國光石化，如果因此毀了整個石化產業鏈的遠景，那即是損失了「亞善」；其實，「至善」無須辯護，因此在愈有爭議性的「亞善」政策上，在民主政治中，愈須政府拿出為政策辯護的能力。馬政府難道竟不明白這個淺顯的道理？