Pension Reform Symposia: The Name is Irrelevant, Problem Solving is Not

Pension Reform Symposia:
The Name is Irrelevant, Problem Solving is Not
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 11, 2012

Summary: In one short month, the Executive Yuan convened 120 pension reform symposia. Recently it convened a central government level experts symposia. Yesterday it convened the first Yuan-level symposia. Representatives from the four largest political parties, including the ruling party, as well military veterans, civil servants, public school teachers, labor and capital, all gathered in one place. Each of the groups voiced their opinions. This was an all too rare exchange of views between the ruling and opposition parties

Full Text below:

In one short month, the Executive Yuan convened 120 pension reform symposia. Recently it convened a central government level experts symposia. Yesterday it convened the first Yuan-level symposia. Representatives from the four largest political parties, including the ruling party, as well military veterans, civil servants, public school teachers, labor and capital, all gathered in one place. Each of the groups voiced their opinions. This was an all too rare exchange of views between the ruling and opposition parties

Over 100 symposia were held. Will they enable the Ma administration to untangle the knots in the pension reform program by the end of the month? That is difficult to say. But this much is certain. There was broad participation, from the grassroots to the central government. Nearly 10,000 people took part in intense debates. The administration can now sift through the ideas proposed by the various parties and separate the wheat from the chaff. This should make possible a consensus. One thing is commendable. The blue, green, orange and yellow political parties, i.e., the KMT, DPP, PFP, NP, all sent expert representatives. They all expressed their viewpoints. DPP representative Huang Mei-ling did not speak in concrete terms. But she said the DPP would offer its own alternative to the KMT's pension reform proposal. This may be a meaningful development.

The complex pension reform problem must be resolved by the end of January. Many see this as "Mission Impossible." Forget the backlash from military veterans, civil servants, and public school teachers. Forget the tug of war with laborers and farmers who wish to retain the current system. Ruling vs. opposition party wrangling in the legislature alone will drag out the process and make any resolution difficult. This is especially true now that the DPP is rubbing its hands and preparing to take to the streets, Executive Yuan consultations will go nowhere. All the administration can do is solicit opinions from the various cities and counties, and communicate with the grassroots. We have unwittingly embarked on a new path of social dialogue. This unexpected bounty may be the result of the government vs. opposition deadlock.

This glimpse of the Big Picture should set off alarms within the DPP. One. The symposia included businesses and representatives from different parties. It amounted to an "alternative national symposium." Its scale and content was broader than the "National Policy Conference" the DPP previously demanded. Two. Representatives from various sectors fought for the opportunity to speak. Yet the largest opposition party, the Democratic Progressive Party, remained silent. This was deeply regrettable. Three. The Democratic Progressive Party persists in blindly obstructing democracy. It persists in conveying its message through outside channels. It persists in remaining silent within the institutional framework. This weakens its own role in a system of checks and balances. It may even lead to its own degeneration. Such worries are not unfounded. Consider the ruling and opposition parties in the US, wrangling over the fiscal cliff crisis. This is a clear example. The fiscal cliff was imminent. The opposition Republican Party refused to increase taxes. The Obama administration was unwilling to compromise. Their diehard attitudes offended the American people. John Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, presided over the negotiations. He failed to notice the loss of support from the public and his colleagues. Eventually Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell and Vice President Joe Biden took charge of negotiations. Only then did they arrive at an agreement. The Republicans enjoyed a majority in the House of Representatives. But Boehner stubbornly refused to admit his mistake. This led to a debacle. Was it wise? An opposition party that lacks rational leadership, is assuredly not conducive to the advancement of democracy.

Recent legislation slashed state-owned enterprise performance bonuses. This was a surprise attack launched by the TSU legislative caucus, which occupies only three seats. The KMT could do little more than offer a two month countermeasure. The DPP is preoccupied with mobilizing for its "Raging Citizens Protest March." It has failed to adopt proactive strategic thinking. It is merely playing catch up. It has forfeited its status as the largest opposition party.

The symposia opened the door to social dialogue. The government sponsored 100 pension fund reform symposia. It communicated with the people on major policy issues. This made it valuable. One. If the opposition DPP rejects democratic dialogue, or abuses its role as the loyal opposition, it will force the ruling party to appeal directly to the people in order to achieve legitimacy in its decision-making. The opposition DPP's obstructionism and non-participation could lead to self-marginalization. Two. Consider another perspective. A large-scale symposia has reached a community consensus. This seldom happens on major issues. But it required an immense effort and massive resources. This is not an economical or effective decision-making model. After all, the purpose of the constitutional framework is to allow legislators to represent different groups of people within the legislature. The purpose was an effective system of representation.

The ruling and opposition parties have yet to convene the "National Policy Conference" demanded by the DPP. But the pension reform symposia was far more representative. It was more explicitly multi-party in character. It effectively broke through the ruling vs. opposition party deadlock. The 100 symposia offered a new channel for social dialogue. It showed that the important aspect was not the name of the symposia, but problem solving. Meanwhile, back in the legislature, the machinery remains stalled.

The DPP attended, but said little. It said it would offer its own alternative for pension reform. Perhaps this was a pragmatic decision. From a partisan and democratic perspective such a change is something worth anticipating.

會議不在名稱，而在解決問題
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.01.11

短短一個多月，行政院在全台舉辦了一百廿場「年金改革」座談會，近日並展開中央政府級的專家座談。日昨首場院級會議，朝野四大黨代表、軍公教和勞資團體代表共聚一堂，各方各抒己見，不失為一場難得的朝野意見交流。

一百多場座談，能否匯聚成馬政府本月底打開所有年金糾結之鑰的方案，目前尚難斷言。但可以肯定的是，經過從基層到中央近萬人的廣泛參與和密集討論，各方意見應可逐漸去蕪存菁，有助形成共識。難能可貴的是，藍綠橘黃四個主要政黨都推派專家代表與會，並在會中表達立場；民進黨代表黃玫玲雖未具體發言，但她表示民進黨將就年金改革提出「對案」，這亦不妨視為一項有意義的發展。

千絲萬縷的年金問題要在元月底就拿出全套改革方案，被許多人視為「不可能的任務」。且不提軍公教的反彈和勞農保制度的拉鋸，光是在國會的朝野角力衝撞，即必然是曠日廢時而難有所成。尤其，正當民進黨摩拳擦掌準備上街遊行，行政院協商無門，只能以聚沙成塔的方式在各縣市召開座談，與基層溝通。但如此一來，反而在無意間走出一條新的社會對話路徑，或許是朝野始料未及的收穫。

這個大畫面所透露的訊息，應讓民進黨感到警惕。第一，這場座談囊括了各行各業及跨黨派代表，被稱為「另類國是會議」，其規模和涵蓋面向其實已比民進黨先前要求召開的「國是會議」更廣。第二，各界代表在會中爭相發言，而作為最大在野黨的民進黨代表卻三緘其口，令人遺憾。第三，民進黨若在國會體制內只追求一味杯葛，在體制外的溝通會議又自我噤聲，其制衡角色恐將自行削弱，甚至扭曲變質。

這樣的擔心並非杞人憂天，觀察美國朝野兩黨為財政懸崖的角力，即是鮮明殷鑑。當時財政墜崖危機已迫在眉睫，在野的共和黨卻一意堅持「拒絕加稅」的立場，對歐巴馬政府寸步不讓，死硬態度讓美國民眾深覺反感。原先領導共和黨代表談判的眾院議長貝納，因未能體察民意而失去同僚的支持；最後，改由共和黨參院領袖麥康納接手與副總統拜登談判，才完成協商方案。試想，共和黨在眾院占有多數優勢，卻因貝納一味抵制的錯誤領導而慘遭挫敗，豈是明智？一個缺乏理性操持的在野黨，絕對不利於民主政治的發展。

再看近日立法大砍國營事業績效獎金之役，竟是由僅占三席的台聯黨團發動奇襲，導致國民黨只能提出一點二個月的對策抵擋。在此議題上，民進黨也因一心專注在動員火大遊行，而未能發揮主動的戰略思考，只能跟進，坐失最大在野黨的操持地位。

從開啟社會對話大門的角度看，政府舉辦百場年金座談，就重大政策和人民溝通，意義值得重視。一、若在野黨不棄絕民主體制的對話設計，乃至濫用反對角色，將迫使執政黨直接訴諸人民取得決策的正當性；如此，在野黨的無限度杯葛可能反而導致自我邊緣化。二、換一個角度看，透過如此大規模的座談求取社會共識，在重大議題上雖可偶一為之，但因勞師動眾，這並非一個經濟、有效的決策模式；畢竟，憲政上之所以設計由立委在國會為不同的民眾代言，追求的就是代議制度的效能。

無論如何，朝野雖未開成民進黨要求的「國是會議」，卻在年金議題上召開了代表性更多元、主題更明確的跨黨派會議，有效突破了朝野僵峙的困局。這百場座談，不僅指出一條新的社會對話管道，也說明會議重要的不在名稱，而在解決問題。但是，回歸國會，仍為最後的歸趨。

此時，民進黨在沉默出席之後，決定將就年金議題提出對案，或許正是一種務實的反思。從政黨政治及國會體制的角度看，這樣的改變，值得期待。