Su Chi's Advice May Grate on the Ears, But Reforms Must Not be Delayed

Su Chi's Advice May Grate on the Ears, But Reforms Must Not be Delayed
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 25, 2012

Summary: Three days after President Ma was inaugurated to his second term, former Secretary General of the National Security Council Su Chi published a critique of the government, including the legislature. Su Chi was one of President Ma's most important aides. His words may grate on the ears of many current administration officials and legislators. Needless to say it generated political waves. But if we calmly review what Su Chi actually said, we must admit he made a number of excellent points.

Full Text below:

Three days after President Ma was inaugurated to his second term, former Secretary General of the National Security Council Su Chi published a critique of the government, including the legislature. Su Chi was one of President Ma's most important aides. His words may grate on the ears of many current administration officials and legislators. Needless to say it generated political waves. But if we calmly review what Su Chi actually said, we must admit he made a number of excellent points.

Su Chi played an extraordinary role in Ma Ying-jeou's brain trust. He was a key member of the Ma administration, responsible for overall national strategy. He is a highly ranked formulator of KMT mainland policy. His experience dates back to the Lee Teng-hui era. He served with the KMT [陸工會], the Mainland Affairs Council, the Government Information Office, and the Office of the President. Most importantly, he was the man responsible for the term, "1992 consensus." His recommendations cannot be dismissed as the uninformed opinion of some outsider who does not understand the situation. The fact is, Su Chi understands better than anyone the workings of the Kuomintang government. If he says the Ma administration has problems, then it has problems.

Su Chi was Secretary General of the National Security Council during President Ma's first term. He was a key member of President Ma's brain trust on cross-Strait and foreign policy. He was a key policy maker on national security matters. After he resigned as National Security Council Secretary-General in 2010, he presided over Ma Ying-jeou's video conference at Harvard University, then organized a forum in Taipei. He helped the Ma administration establish a second channel for cross-strait dialogue. Su has long been at the center of power. He understands Ma Ying-jeou's way of doing things. He understands the ruling administration's approach to decision-making. In this regard, few people are his peer.

He is a seasoned veteran, deeply involved in government affairs. His friendship with President Ma is deep. Su Chi's criticisms cannot be dismissed as either ignorant or malicious. Were Su Chi's remarks fair? Did they smear the Legislative Yuan? Instead of asking such questions, we should examine what Su Chi actually said. Did he identify the underlying problems? After all, our concern is not with winning arguments. Our concern with uncovering problems, and mobilizing the government so solve them. We must not wait until the president is a lame-duck. By then it will be too late.

Su Chi's leveled four criticisms. One. The administration lacks expert political appointees. As a result many career civil servants have been appointed in their stead. This is why the current administration is "more conservative and less innovative" than the KMT was during the 1990s. Career civil servants lack the courage to defend administration policy. The result? For the past four years, the Ma administration has been a solo act, with no chorus to back him up. This means the administration lacked leadership. Political appointees lacked both the initiative and the ability to champion administration policy. Su Chi says President Ma must take the lead. He must inspire the entire government through his beliefs and his determination. He must inspire even the private sector. He must persuade or even compel officials to undertake reform, and strengthen Taiwan's democracy. On this point, President Ma himself must be willing to listen.

Two. The problems are systemic. Su Chi says many people blame President Ma. President Ma shares responsibility of course. But the biggest problem is systemic. Everyone is unhappy with the status quo. So they project their dissatisfaction onto President Ma. Su Chi says Taiwan's leaders are "squirrels in a cage." They run and run, only to find themselves in the same place. Su Chi says "If Taiwan's democracy is not strengthened, whichever person or party wins power will merely enter the cage and become the new squirrel." The ruling and opposition parties must subject the existing constitutional system and party system to fundamental review. They may even need to amend the constitution. These options should be discussed and evaluated.

Three. The Legislative Yuan is broken. Ruling and opposition political party consultations are back room deals. Su Chi said the Legislative Yuan mechanism for ruling and opposition party consultation "distorts the results of democratic elections, and is the darkest corner of our democratic system." Su Chi noted that our Legislative Yuan passes only about 160 bills a year. As a result, the nation is shackled by outdated laws and regulations. Adults are forced to wear children's shoes. Meanwhile career civil servants mechanically enforce outdated laws. This makes it difficult to deal with complex issues, and even more difficult to ensure national prosperity. The public considers the government less effective than it was before, and considers the Legislative Yuan the root of the problem. The problem may not be with cross-party consultation per se. It may be with unqualified legislators. But the result is inefficient legislative review, which turns party consultations into a necessary evil. This has long been the consensus. Legislators should not offer rebuttals. They should engage in soul searching.

Four. Government leaders offer not hope for the future. Su Chi spoke of his own youth. Taiwan was poor, closed, and subject to authoritarian rule. It was wracked by cross-strait tensions. It was ostracized by the international community. Yet young people were confident, brimming with hopes and dreams. They looked to the future with enthusiasm. By contrast, today's young people hold out little hope for the future. Society has no template. Society has lost its vitality. The prospect is depressing.

These are the problems President Ma must ponder. Veteran KMT officials agree. What sort of vision can we offer society for the future? This is the question the Ma administration must ask itself during its second term.
   
中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2012.05.25
蘇起建言雖刺耳 改革現況不容緩
本報訊

    　在馬總統第二任就職的第三天，曾為馬總統最重要幕僚之一的國安會前秘書長蘇起發表了對政府（包括立法院）的一些批評。讓不少現任官員和立法委員聽了很不舒服，當然也引發若干政壇漣漪，然而平心靜氣再檢視蘇起的發言內容，恐怕也不得不承認，他確實點出了若干值得思考的課題。

    　蘇起在決策團隊的角色非比一般。他曾是馬政府負責總體國家戰略的最核心成員，也是非常資深的國民黨大陸政策制定者，從李登輝前總統時代，即曾任職國民黨陸工會、行政院陸委會、新聞局、總統府，更是「九二共識」一詞的提出者。他所提出的意見，不可能被輕易視為外行或不了解實際情況。事實是蘇起對國民黨政府的運作比誰都了解，如果他說馬政府存在著某些問題，恐怕也很難反駁說那些問題不存在。

    　蘇起在馬總統第一任期內擔任國安會秘書長，不僅是馬總統在兩岸與外交上的最重要智囊，也是國安政策的重要制定者。二○一○年辭去國安會秘書長之後，蘇起還曾到美國哈佛大學為馬英九主持視訊會議，後來更組織了台北論壇，為馬政府的兩岸對話搭起第二軌道。長期處在這樣核心的位置，蘇起對馬英九行事風格的了解，對執政團隊決策模式的體會，恐怕也是極少人能夠比擬的。

    　以對政府參與經驗之老到、與馬總統交情之深厚，要說蘇起的批評是外行或出於惡意，都是不可能的。因此，與其檢討蘇的發言是否公平，或是有無汙名化立院，不如正面檢視蘇起這些諫言的內容，究竟有無點出真正問題？畢竟當前更該關注的不是政治口水，而是發掘出真正的問題，讓整個政府積極動起來，不要等到總統權力真正進入跛鴨階段，要做什麼就已經來不及了。

    　綜合蘇起的批評，大概可以理出四個重點：首先，政府缺乏政務官人才。他認為政務官人才不足，多由事務官出任，造成現在行政部門比九十年代「保守多、創新少」；事務官缺乏替政策辯護的勇氣，也造成過去四年馬政府「只有獨唱，沒有合唱」的現象。這其實就是說政府的領導人才不足，政務官沒有擔負起主動倡議政策的責任，也沒有為政策辯護的能力。在這點上，蘇起的建議是馬總統要作「林上風」，也就是以理念和決心來領導整個政府，甚至影響民間。說服、感動、甚至強迫相關人士從事制度改革，讓台灣民主深化。這一點，恐怕得馬總統自己願意聽得進去。

    　其次，則是制度面的問題。蘇起說，很多人把不滿歸咎於馬總統，馬總統固然有責任，但更大的責任其實是在制度面；大家只是把對現狀的不滿，投射在馬總統身上。蘇起說，台灣的執政者現在像「籠子裡的松鼠」，跑了發現自己原地踏步；「如果台灣民主不在制度面深化，任何人或黨贏得政權，只是進入籠子當新的松鼠而已」。就此，朝野或許都該再思考，現有的憲政制度、政黨制度，是否該進行深層的檢討，未來包括修憲的可能性，都該好好討論評估。

    　再其次，立法院的運作很差，政黨朝野協商很黑暗。蘇起指立法院朝野協商機制「扭曲民主選舉的結果，是我民主制度最黑暗的角落」。蘇起指出台灣立法院平均一年僅通過約一百六十個法案，使國家受到許多過時法規的束縛；「大人穿小鞋」再加上事務官「依法行政」，當然不易處理當下的複雜問題，更難為國興利。這是台灣近年來，民間普遍感受到的問題，政府的行動力反而不如從前。而立法院的問題根源，或許還不在朝野協商，而是立法委員的素質仍未有提升，導致法案審查效率低落，使得朝野協商成為必要之惡。這個問題，本來就是大家的共識，立委諸公與其反駁，不如反思吧！

    　最後，蘇起認為政府領導人沒有給人民希望。他特別提及年輕時台灣社會雖然貧窮封閉、威權統治、兩岸緊張加上國際打壓，但當時年輕人有信心、希望和目標，普遍對未來充滿衝勁；反觀現在台灣年輕人沒有希望，社會沒有典範，整個社會失去活力，看了令人傷心。

    　這些確實都是馬總統最該深入思考的問題。如果連資深的國民黨官員都這樣認為，那麼如何提出整個台灣社會的願景，讓人民對未來有較為明確的想像，還真是馬政府第二任期最急迫的課題了。