Politically-Motivated Flood Control Would Defeat Even Da Yu

Politically-Motivated Flood Control Would Defeat Even Da Yu
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
September 5, 2013

Summary: Moderate Typhoon Kong-Rey inflicted heavy damage on central and southern Taiwan. The tail end of the typhoon moved northward and dumped heavy rains on Keelung, at Taiwan's northern tip. Flood waters visited disaster upon both Keelung City and Keelung County. They also led to mutual recriminations between local and central government. Bickering over flood control budgets and flood control effectiveness raged endlessly, confusing everyone looking on.

Full text below:

Moderate Typhoon Kong-Rey inflicted heavy damage on central and southern Taiwan. The tail end of the typhoon moved northward and dumped heavy rains on Keelung, at Taiwan's northern tip. Flood waters visited disaster upon both Keelung City and Keelung County. They also led to mutual recriminations between local and central government. Bickering over flood control budgets and flood control effectiveness raged endlessly, confusing everyone looking on.

Typhoons batter Taiwan every year. The government and the public have engaged in soil and water conservation. They have invested heavily in river remediation. Nevertheless each time a typhoon arrives, flooding follows. Each time rain falls, disaster follows. This is true every time, everywhere, in the north or in the south. Typhoon Kong-Rey showed that local flooding does not discriminate between Blue and Green, and that landslides are indifferent to the time and date.

Floods and landslides have nothing to do with Blue or Green political affiliation. Green Camp city mayors and county chiefs gathered in one place to demand flood control money and plead with the central government. Interior Minister Li Hong-yuan even spoke up, telling Premier Jiang Yi-hua how to control floods. An public policy issue that should transcend partisanship, has become a political issue.

If one concentrated exclusively on the technical aspects of flood control, the problems would be so much simpler. But flood control is side-tracked by political considerations. Political posture and electoral considerations get dragged in. Add personal political calculations, and the issue becomes increasingly complex, and the focus increasingly blurred.

Sadly, as long as torrential rains batter Taiwan, we will be subjected to "politically-motivated flood control." Central Emergency Operations Center Commander Li Hong-yuan said that some counties were lax in disaster prevention. This provoked immediate opposition party counterattacks. Some got down on their knees and pleaded. Others shrilly denounced him, The interaction between central and local governments, the bickering over flood control money, left everyone red in the face with anger.

Li Hong-yuan said "If we talk only about money, then flood control is impossible. The central government may allocate 60 billion or 600 billion to flood control. But if local governments continue pumping out too much groundwater, it will be to no avail." Tainan City Mayor Lai Ching-teh, in league with the five city mayors and county chiefs, lashed out. "If Li Hong-yuan personally took a trip to the region, examined the reasons for the flooding, and the results of flood control, he would realize that we are not merely asking the central government for money."

In fact, when city mayors and county chiefs fight for central government money, the lines are not necessarily drawn along Blue and Green political lines. Sometimes it is actually about who is in need. Take Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin. Lai Ching-teh blasted him for tardiness in declaring a typhoon emergency. Hau bluntly averred that government heads could do little, and that hoped people would understand.

Later however, Hau phoned four city mayors and county chiefs in Yunling, Chiayi, and Tainan, asking them if they required assistance. But he never received a clear answer. Premier Chiang went south to survey the affected regions. But county chiefs and city mayors confronted him with demands for funds. Observers cannot help concluding that their presumption was a prelude to demands for handouts. As a result, Hau, who ventured forth on his own initiative, was more than a little embarrassed .

Local heads in the stricken regions were ambivalent toward Taipei City. They presented two faces to the central government. This reveals how serious the problem of "politically motivated flood control" is. On the one hand, local county chiefs and city mayors have not rid themselves of partisanship. Even a goodwill gesture from the capital city provoked political discomfort among the different parties. On the other hand, it is always about the money. Local government heads' petitions, in the final analysis, were always about money.

A closer look shows that during the DPP's eight years in power, it handed out 80 billion in flood control money. Now its time has run out. Five Green Camp county chiefs and city mayors in the south are demanding 60 billion over 6 years. Special budgets or public budgets are no different. Ten billion a year in flood control money is bound to become a political issue. Local governments have no intention of quitting until they get what they want. But the central government must worry about the money being spent where it will do the most good.

Yunlin, Chiayi, Tainan, and Pingtung have announced the result of their flood control efforts. They are swearing up and down that every penny is being used where it does the most good. The Ministry of the Interior was silent for several days.  It then released fund allocation lists and re-released county and city rankings for adminstrative efficiency. They blasted Yunlin and Chiayi. A single declaration that "The per capita storm sewer construction funds for each county could not buy a hard-boiled egg" intensified the rhetoric between central and local governments.

Political struggles have resulted in political rhetoric trumping flood control. Local and central governments each have their own political calculations. Who cares about the legislature's latest report about which local government's flood control is the least effective? Who cares about Ma Ying-jeou's declaration that "central and local governments share a common concern for flood control?"

Flood control is a long term project. It requires multi-generational continuity. It requires ongoing struggle that transcends partisanship and sectarianism. It requires concern for the public weal. Yunlin County Chief Su Chih-fen posted a message on Facebook. "Eight years ago the comprehensive governance program failed to simultaneously promote comprehensive water management. This was most unfortunate." In fact, this was Li Hong-yuan's "comprehensive flood control" concept. Su added, "Watershed Management" and long-term land planning reform can be implemented simultaneously. This was something Li Hong-yuan consistently advocated with his "watershed management partnership."

The ruling and opposition parties are not necessarily talking about parallel flood control plans. Su Chih-fen and Li Hong-yuan spoke over the phone. They had a good talk. This shows that in the absence of political considerations and calculations of self-interest, the two sides can reach a consensus. Otherwise, even if the legendary Da Yu were reincarnateded, he would not be able to control today's flood waters.

社論－政治治水，大禹再世也沒用
中國時報 本報訊
2013年09月05日 04:10

一場康芮輕颱造成中南部慘重災情，隨後臨去秋波甩尾北上的豪大雨，又重創台灣頭的基隆。由於水淹成災，使得受創縣市叫苦連天，也掀起地方與中央的相互叫陣，為治水預算的編列與成效吵翻天，令人看得眼花撩亂。

台灣每年都有颱風，儘管政府、民間相繼在水土保持、河川整治的工作上投入龐大心力，然而，逢颱必淹、遇雨成災，依舊是台灣不分南北普遍存在的現象。這次康芮颱風來襲，即說明地區淹水豈會分藍綠，土石崩裂更不會挑時看日。

正因為淹大水和土石流都無關政黨或藍綠，所以當綠營執政的5縣市長齊聚一堂，為爭取治水預算向中央請命，甚至要內政部長李鴻源站出來，教行政院長江宜樺怎麼治水時，一個原本應該超越黨派、地域的公共政策議題，卻成了政治問題。

談治水，若只是論技術問題，那會單純許多，但要是扯到政治問題，不僅牽涉政黨立場，也有選舉考量，再加上個人政治利益的算計，既錯綜複雜，也模糊焦點。

悲哀的是，在台灣政壇只要碰到暴雨成災，總是難逃「水災政治學」的積習。比方說，身為中央災害應變中心指揮官的李鴻源，點名部分縣市的防災非常消極，隨即引來在野黨的反擊，又是下跪，又是嗆聲，中央與地方互槓，為了治水的錢爭得面紅耳赤。

譬如，當李鴻源直指，「治水若只談錢就沒解，中央再編600億或6000億，地方若繼續超抽地下水，一樣沒有用。」串聯5縣市首長的台南市長賴清德則回應，「如果李鴻源親自到地方走一趟，看看淹水原因，再檢視治水成果，他會明瞭，我們不是只會向中央要錢。」

其實，在縣市長聯手向中央力爭預算的過程裡，藍綠並非必然的對立，甚至還有那麼一點雪中送炭的味道。以台北市長郝龍斌為例，在賴清德因颱風假放太慢而挨罵之際，他出面緩頰，直言首長難為，盼民眾體諒。

不過，郝龍斌後來致電雲嘉南4縣市長，詢問是否需要支援，卻未獲得明確回應。等到江揆南下勘災，縣市長們卻又跳出來陳情，讓外界不免有「前倨後恭」的質疑，也使得主動探詢的郝龍斌有些尷尬。

坦白說，受災地區地方首長對北市曖昧、向中央喊話所呈現的兩樣情，顯示「治水問題政治化」的嚴重性。一方面，地方縣市長之間未能真正擺脫黨派思維，即便是來自首善之區的善意，不同黨派也會瞻前顧後；另一方面，則是一切向錢看，地方父母官的集體陳情說到底還是為了錢。

深入地看，因為民進黨執政時編列8年800億治水預算，現在執行時限即將到來，綠營南部5縣市長要求再加碼6年600億，不管是要以特別預算續編，還是回歸公務預算，讓一年百億的治水經費隱然成為一種政治標的。地方有不達目的絕不終止的盤算，而中央則有錢應花在刀口上的考量。

因此，雲嘉南與高屏紛紛公布治水成效，藉以佐證每分錢是用在刀口上，沉寂數日的內政部，則除了列出經費的分配排名之外，索性再公布各縣市執行不力的排名，把雲嘉又痛批了一番。一句「每個縣民雨水下水道建設經費不到一個茶葉蛋」，讓中央和地方的政治口水戰越演越烈。

政治攻防至此，已是口水多過治水，在地方與中央皆各自算計之下，誰還會在乎那份立法院批評政府治水成效不彰的最新報告，或者馬英九總統所言，拚治水「中央地方一條心」。

治水是百年大事，需要世世代代的接力、前仆後繼的奮鬥，以及超越黨派門戶之見、以眾生為念的胸襟。雲林縣長蘇治芬在臉書提及「8年前的總合治理方案，沒有與綜合治水方案一起推，最為可惜。」其實，這正是李鴻源倡議的「總合治水」概念；蘇又說，「流域治理」與長期的國土規畫、空間倫理改造是可並行的，恰巧李鴻源始終主張「建立流域治理的夥伴關係」。

顯然，朝野談治水未必是兩條平行線。蘇治芬與李鴻源一通電話，相談甚歡，說明只要不是政治掛帥，沒有利害算計，雙方應不難找到交集與共識，否則就算是大禹再世，也沒轍！