Ruling and Opposition Party Selfishness and Blindness

Ruling and Opposition Party Selfishness and Blindness
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 26, 2014

Executive Summary: The blue and green camps use different techniques to recruit personnel. Both parties have fallen into their own ruts. Therein lies the potential for disaster. The longer the Kuomintang ruled, the shallower its talent pool became. And no matter where the Democratic Progressive Party rules, it invariably practices "rule by ideology”. This is the main reason the political climate has changed, why people have changed, and changed so rapidly. If the two parties' recruitment policies remain unchanged, what will become of Taiwan?

Full Text Below:

The recent elections have changed the political landscape. Central and local governments are reshuffling their personnel. The reshuffling in the Executive Yuan has been ridiculed as "old wine in new bottles." The premier has been replaced, but the heads of other agencies remain the same. Nothing has changed. Meanwhile, at the local level, county chiefs and city mayors took office yesterday, accompanied by their inner cabinets. Strictly speaking, these personnel appointments were based more on political coloration than on job fitness. Both the grooming and appointment of blue and green camp political appointees have been major disappointments.

First take the KMT. President Ma Ying-jeou has been in office six and a half years. He has long been criticized for recruiting exclusively from his inner circle. The officials who come and go are all drawn from the same coterie of academics or technocrats. They are rarely exceptional. By contrast, in the wake of elections, party representatives or local leaders seldom receive much attention from the party's highest levels. Even highly qualified and experienced officials such as Hau Lung-ping and Jason Hu are given the cold shoulder. Was this a consequence of the Lin Yi-shi and Lai Shu-ru scandals? If so, that is throwing the baby out with the bath water. The party suffered a major setback. The Mao cabinet can be likened to a "great wind." The same group of people was kicked upstairs, but kept in office. People wanted change. The government should have thrown open the door and created an new political climate. Yet President Ma once again fell back on his "second tier" troop replacement policy in a move to ensure stability. He apparently has yet to grok the reason for his defeat.

Such overly conservative cabinet appointments will of course make innovative government and party personnel appointments difficult. An ideal government personnel appointment plan would balance political elites with administrative elites. It would include professional elites from academia, and even working people from private companies or social groups. Such a diversified cabinet would create synergy between theory and practice. Decision-making and operations would complement each other. For one, it would prevent an administration's thinking from becoming too divorced from reality. For another, it would ensure communications with the legislature, the public, and even the political opposition. It would prevent policy proposals from being blocked on every front. Unfortunately, the Ma government's repeated cabinet reshuffles, have always fallen into the same monotonous trap, again and again.

Recent ruling and opposition party discussions about constitutional issues have revealed support for the cabinet system. This is the result of a negative reaction to a "cabinet manned by academics." Do we really want to adopt the cabinet system? If so, current ruling and opposition lawmakers have questionable ability. They are unlikely to inspire public trust. They are likely to be either derelict in their duty or busy themselves making sweetheart deals. The current cabinet consists of academics and technocrats. They are often guilty of ivory tower policy-making. They lack political sensitivity. They cannot communicate with the legislature and the public. This leads to policy proposals that are politically impracticable. With every cabinet reshuffle, political appointees from academia return to academia to teach. With every election or policy debate, cabinet members shirk and refuse to do battle. They are no help to the ruling administration whatsoever.

Take Jason Hu, for example. He was a former foreign minister and ROC representative to the US. Despite his qualifications, he was willing "go down to the countryside," and run for local office. Who knew that once he went down the countryside, he could no longer return to the ranks of central government? His talents were wasted at the local level, until he was finally forced to step down. Another example is officials sent to hostile territories to "break new ground." Most have no desire to remain and lay down roots. They are afraid that if they fail they will be abandoned. Those in power are unwilling to nurture local talent and open up channels of communication between political appointees and administrative officials. They are unwilling to it dispatch troops where they are needed. This means improvements to government efficiency will reamain impossible, and the sustainable nurturing of talent will remain empty rhetoric.

The KMT has adopted a "big wind" model. The green camp has adopted a "prizes for all" model, which has little to小 recommend it. The "prizes for all" model is nothing more than "If they have the right political colors, then prizes for all!” Take the recent green camp county and city level reshuffling for example. Logically speaking, the main consideration for local governments should be administrative ability rather than political affiliation. That would ensure a functional and capable administration. But the county and city reshufflings betray a preponderance of official appointments that merely reward political cronies. Lin Chia-lung has replaced every member of the Taichung City Government. He has "Chopped heads and started over." Therefore any talk of continuity in municipal government is utterly pointless.

Consider the officials recruited by the green camp. There is no shortage of controversial figures. For example, former Transportion Minister Lin Ling-san was implicated in the ETC scandal. He is now Deputy Mayor of Taichung City. Chou Li-liang was implicated in the foreign workers scandal. He is now Kaohsiung MRT Bureau Chief. Former Water Conservancy Director Lee Hsien-yi was forced to step down over the gas explosion disaster. He is now Taichung Deputy Secretary-General. In addition, the DPP "party worker gang" and the "Kaohsiung gang" have made major inroads in the cities and counties. Even Cheng Wen-chan is again provoking controversy by using the "Kainan gang". The only explanation is recruitment based on political coloration instead of ability and integrity. As long as one is loyal to the green camp, then it's "Prizes for all!"

The blue and green camps use different techniques to recruit personnel. Both parties have fallen into their own ruts. Therein lies the potential for disaster. The longer the Kuomintang ruled, the shallower its talent pool became. And no matter where the Democratic Progressive Party rules, it invariably practices "rule by ideology”. This is the main reason the political climate has changed, why people have changed, and changed so rapidly. If the two parties' recruitment policies remain unchanged, what will become of Taiwan?

大風吹與發福袋：談朝野用人的私和盲
【聯合報╱社論】
2014.12.26 02:21 am

因應選後新政局，中央到地方都進行了人事改組。不過，行政院改組被譏為「換湯不換藥」，除了閣揆換人，其餘部會首長幾乎原班人馬留任，毫無新意可言。在地方，各縣市長昨天也都帶著自己新組的「小內閣」上任，嚴格說來，這些人事卻是政治顏色考量大於適才適所的布局。藍綠在政務官的養成與任用上都讓人失望。

先談國民黨。馬英九總統執政六年半，始終被外界評為「小圈圈用人」，官員來來去去皆不脫同一體系的學者或技術官僚，絕少驚豔之作。相形之下，經過選舉洗禮的黨內民意代表或地方首長，則甚少得到層峰垂青，連資歷豐厚的郝龍斌、胡志強等也遭冷遇；若說這是林益世、賴素如後遺症之一，則恐已到了因噎廢食的地步。歷經一場重大挫敗，毛內閣的組成卻如「大風吹」，同一批人移了移位置，居然也就重新上陣。正當人心思變，政府必須大開大闔創造氣象之際，馬總統反而採取「次軍布局」圖求穩定，彷彿不知自己敗在哪裡。

如此守舊、呆滯的人才布局，當然影響政府及黨內人才的流動，執政作為難有創新。理想的政府人事布局，應該是若干比例的政治菁英搭配行政菁英，再加上學術界的專業菁英，乃至加入若干民間企業或社會團體的實務工作者共同組成。這樣的多元組合，有助於理論與實務的互相切磋與激發，在決策與操作上的彼此互補相成，一則行政思考不致太過脫離現實，二則與國會、民間乃至反對陣營的溝通不會窒礙難通，才不致使行政推動處處碰壁。遺憾的是，馬政府多次內閣改組，始終陷入單調的布局路線，一次次掉進同一陷阱。

最近朝野談及修憲議題，都提到希望改為「內閣制」，此議，正是對「學者內閣」不滿的反撲。當然，如果真要改成內閣制，以目前朝野國會議員素質之參差，只怕難以取信於民，更可能衍生嚴重的利益輸送問題。但是，目前學者和技術官僚當道的行政團隊，常常抱著象牙塔裡的學問當成政策，既缺乏政治敏感度，又無法與立法院和社會大眾溝通，導致決策無法推動或令出而不行。尤其，學界出身的政務官每逢改組去職即返校重拾教鞭，每逢選舉或政策辯論又怯於上陣，這對執政黨厚植人才毫無助益。

以胡志強為例，曾任外交部長與駐美代表，這種條件卻願意「下鄉」參選的政務官幾稀。誰料，一下到地方，就回不了中央，他只能耗損到交出地盤。再如許多被派往艱困選區「開疆闢土」的戰將，也多半不願久待扎根，就是唯恐來不及建立戰功就先被遺棄。執政者如果不能將培育人才的眼光放至地方，並打通民意代表與行政官員換軌的管道，使其截長補短，則政府效能恐怕無以提升，人才的永續經營也將淪為空話。

若說國民黨用人是「大風吹」模式，綠營的「發福袋」模式，也沒有太多值得誇口。所謂「發福袋」，就是「只看顏色，人人有獎」。以這次各綠營縣市的改組為例，照理地方政府組成應以事務而非政治為主要考量，以維持行政上的穩健和熟練。但從各縣市的用人看，卻幾乎都以分配官位為重，獎賞朋黨。林佳龍將台中市府一級首長全部換人，「砍掉重練」；如此一來，要談市政延續當然是緣木求魚。

再看那些受到綠營百里侯重用的官員，不乏爭議人物。例如，曾在ＥＴＣ弊案遭訴的前交通部長林陵三，出任台中市副市長；曾涉高捷外勞弊案的周禮良，出任台北市捷運局長；因氣爆案下台的高雄市前水利局長李賢義，出任台中市副秘書長。此外，如民進黨的「黨工幫」及「高雄幫」大舉進入各縣市，乃至鄭文燦重用「開南幫」，都引起議論。這種情況，唯一的解釋就是，用人考量只論「顏色」而非「能力操守」，只要是綠營，便「人人有獎」。

藍綠的用人取材手法不同，但兩黨似乎越來越陷入自己的思維窠臼，而有走火入魔之勢。國民黨執政越久，人才庫越顯單薄；而民進黨無論在哪裡執政，卻都被質疑「意識形態治國」，這正是主要原因。環境在變，人心在變，而且變得很快，但如果兩黨的用人政策不變，台灣如何進步？