Democracy vs. Economics: Terry Gou and Wen-Je Ko Speak Different Languages

Democracy vs. Economics: Terry Gou and Wen-Je Ko Speak Different Languages
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 19, 2014

Executive Summary: Taiwan's economy is of course, not about to collapse tomorrow. Rather it is like a sick person who is constantly coughing. Yesterday, a fever. Today, vomiting. The symptoms persist, but are ignored. How can such an economy stay healthy? And with doctors such as Wen-Je Ko, whose diagnoses drag in Hitler and the Soviet Union, what chance does the patient have of surviving?

Full Text Below:

Concerned about the impact of the PRC-ROK FTA on Taiwan, Hon Hai Chairman Terry Gou publicly urged voters motivated primarily by economic considerations to clear their heads and join him in saving Taiwan. "Do not force me to leave Taiwan," Guo said. Wen-Je Ko lashed back. Ko said Gou's goal was correct, but his methods are wrong.  Taiwan must become a "good democracy," and not emulate the Hitlerite or Soviet model of development.

The two men spoke entirely different languages. Part of the problem is that the two men are using arcane language and logic. But part of the problem is they reflect Taiwan's long-standing political and economic polarization. And so far, no solution is in sight.

As an industrial tycoon, Terry Gou is concerned that Taiwan’s economy will be undermined because the STA and MTA remain stalled. The concern was written on his face. That was of course understandable. With elections approaching he added, "If I was a foreigner, I would not invest in Taiwan. If I were Taiwanese, I would reduce the scale of my operations on Taiwan." He said what many entrepreneurs were thinking. Some will inevitably interpret his remarks as "intimidation." Meanwhile, Wen-Je Ko, a candidate for the mayor of Taipei, the capital city, lept up to respond. Ko however, responded in a bizarre manner. He said Taiwan should learn from "American democracy." Ko did not respond to Chairman Guo’s call for "economics first." Instead he abruptly invoked Hitler and the Soviet model. One has to wonder what era Wen-Je Ko thinks he is living in.


The KMT has long played the "economics card" during election campaigns. During this election however, even the blue camp has given up. Clearly it too doubts its utility. Terry Gou came forward and appealed to economically motivated voters 56 times. This revealed the depth of his concern. His remarks however, are unlikely to arouse voter vigilance, never mind turn the tide. The economy remains hostage to politics. The general public, meanwhile, remains numb and past caring. Consider the exchange between Terry Gou and Wen-Je Ko. Peoples’ real concern is whether certain companies intend to flee. The economy has long been hostage to politics. The problem is insoluble. If anything, it has worsened. Taiwan's economy has long been hijacked by politics. It has been bound and bent. So what is the solution? Democratic elections ought to be an opportunity to evaluate the political parties’ and candidates’ economic policy platforms. They should not be stages on which to mouth irresponsible rhetoric. The DPP has dodged the issue. Clearly it realizes the best response is no response. Wen-Je Ko ranted and raved. He merely proved he does not know what he is talking about.

Politics and economics do not run in parallel. The purpose of democracy is to solve peoples’ problems lives through political means. Therefore "min sheng" (peoples livelihood) issues are where politics and economics intersect. The definition of “min sheng” is of course very broad. It includes food, transportation, social welfare. It also includes medical care and employee wages. Finally, it includes industrial development and national policy. During elections, vital issues concerning the peoples livelihood are the ones most easily demagogued by political candidates. That is why there is invariably a run on "policy vote-buying." Under such conditions, cunning politicians pander to voters’ myopic demands, then leave the mess for the next generation or others to clean up.

Over the past 20 years of democratization, we have seen this scenario enacted too many times. During every election the candidates invariably raise the ante. The most popular policy on Taiwan this year, is free or subsidized dentures for the elderly, and the restoration of year end bonuses for military and other government personnel. No matter what the side effects, there are always candidates eager to play along. Higher level economic issues include the impact of the PRC-ROK FTA, the STA, and the MTA, and whether they can be fast-tracked. They include incentives for businesses to increase employee salaries. But in the current political atmosphere, such issues are taboo, and cannot be discussed. This is true even of local government job creation. Whose economic policy platform is more conducive to local economic prosperity? Such questions are beyond the pale. The candidates’ economic policy platforms cannot be evaluated. Candidates merely claw at each others’ scabs. Candidates merely demonize each other. How can such a democracy possibly  serve the people?

Looking forward, Taiwan's economic problems are not about whether any particular company increases its investments or flees from the island. Nor are they about whether the Mainland increases economic and trade exchanges. Nor are they about whether A-list companies are able to upgrade. Taiwan's biggest economic problem, is that politicians simply do not care what happens to Taiwan’s economy over the next five to ten years. Will industry on Taiwan become the Mainland’s OEM industry? Will the next generation on Taiwan become low wage labor in foreign lands? The only thing ruling and opposition party politicians care about currently is how to pass the buck for the recession on to their opponents. When their terms of office expire, they will congratulate themselves, and leave behind them a ruined landscape, one that the people will regret and have to bear, no?

Taiwan's economy is of course, not about to collapse tomorrow. Rather it is like a sick person who is constantly coughing. Yesterday, a fever. Today, vomiting. The symptoms persist, but are ignored. How can such an economy stay healthy? And with doctors such as Wen-Je Ko, whose diagnoses drag in Hitler and the Soviet Union, what chance does the patient have of surviving?

民主與經濟：郭台銘和柯文哲的雞同鴨講
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.11.19 02:12 am

憂心《中韓自貿協定》對台灣的衝擊，鴻海董事長郭台銘公開喊話，希望「經濟選民」理性思考，共同拯救台灣的未來，「別逼我離開台灣」。對此，柯文哲回嗆說，郭台銘的目標正確、方法錯誤，台灣應向「好的民主」學習，而不要像希特勒或蘇聯的發展模式。

這段「雞同鴨講」的對話，除反映了兩人迷宮似的語言和思考邏輯，也相當程度描繪了台灣政治和經濟長期以來兩相分離的困境，且至今似仍無解。

作為大企業家，郭台銘擔心台灣經濟受兩岸服貿、貨貿停滯不前之牽累，因而憂形於色，當然是可以理解的事。但他在選舉逼近前說出「如果我是外國人，我不會投資台灣；如果我是台灣人，我會縮減在台灣的營運規模」，這些話或許說出了很多企業家的心聲，但難免被某些人解讀為「恐嚇牌」。相對的，柯文哲作為首都市長候選人主動跳出來接招，卻回應得相當離奇：說台灣要學習「美式民主」，並不算答覆了郭董「經濟優先」的呼籲；然後他突然跳接到希特勒及蘇聯模式，這不免令人好奇柯文哲的思維究竟停頓在什麼年代的時空背景？

在選舉中打「經濟牌」，是國民黨一向慣用的手法；但這次選舉，似乎連藍軍都放棄了此一招數，顯然已經不知道這是否還有利用價值。此時，郭台銘主動跳出來，向「經濟選民」連續喊話五十六次，可見其憂慮之深。然而，要說這番講話能激起選民的警覺，乃至產生什麼力挽狂瀾的作用，只怕難以樂觀，因為一般民眾對經濟受政治牽制的困境似乎已經感到麻痺。

事實上，看郭台銘與柯文哲的對話，真正令人關注之處，其實不在個別企業是否「出走」的問題，而在政治與經濟長期懸而未解的背道而馳；或者更準確地說，是台灣政治長期對經濟的凌壓、箝制和扭曲，應該如何解決。至少，民主選舉應對政黨或候選人的經濟訴求進行相當程度的檢驗，而不是可以任人信口雌黃。從民進黨對此事的閃躲看，它知道避免回應是上策；而大剌剌搶答的柯文哲，則顯示他不知所云。

政治和經濟，絕對不是兩條平行線。民主的目的，是在透過政治的手段，解決人民生活的各種問題；亦即，「民生」就是政治與經濟的交集。當然，民生的定義很廣，近者如食物交通、社會福利，中者如醫療照護、勞動薪資，遠者則如產業發展、國家願景等。選舉時，候選人最容易操弄的就是那些民眾切身的民生議題，因而不斷有所謂的「利多大放送」；在這種情況下，狡猾的政客掠奪了當下的選舉利益，卻把政策的後遺症留給下一代或其他人去承受。

過去廿多年的民主化，人們見識過太多這種景象。例如，每次選舉必定祭出各種津貼加碼，今年全台流行的，則是老人假牙免費或補助；包括軍公教年終慰問金是否恢復，不論是否奏效或有多少副作用，都有人喊價。至於更高層次的經濟議題，諸如中韓ＦＴＡ的衝擊、服貿及貨貿協議能否加快腳步、如何促使企業為員工加薪，在當前政治氛圍下則宛如一灘死水，無法討論；甚至連地方如何創造就業機會，誰的經濟主張更有助於地方繁榮，一概闕如。如果候選人創造經濟機會的政見不能拿來評比，選舉只是一味互挖瘡疤、彼此醜化，這樣的民主政治如何服務人民？

往前看，台灣經濟的難題，其實不是哪一家企業要不要擴大投資、會不會出走的問題而已，也不是要不要和大陸擴大經貿交流，或者明星產業能不能轉型升級的問題而已。台灣經濟最大的困境，是政治人物完全不關心下一個五年或十年台灣的經濟將變成什麼面貌：台灣的資通產業會不會淪為大陸產業的代工者？台灣的下一代會不會變成抬不起頭的異鄉打工仔？目前，朝野政客關心的，只是如何把經濟衰退的責任推給對手；但是，當他們任期屆滿拍拍屁股走人之後，留下的破敗景象，卻是老百姓在唏噓、在承受，不是嗎？

台灣的經濟，當然不是明天就會倒地不起的問題；但這和人生病一樣，如果它不斷咳嗽，昨天發燒、今天嘔吐，人們仍置之不理，這樣的經濟體如何保持健康？而如果遇上柯文哲這樣的名醫，他卻拿聲名狼藉的希特勒和蘇聯之歷史作為診斷，我們還有活路嗎？