A Content-Free Tsai Ing-wen: More Frightening than Ma Ying-jeou or Chen Shui-bian

A Content-Free Tsai Ing-wen: More Frightening than Ma Ying-jeou or Chen Shui-bian
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 13, 2015

Executive Summary: Rising public opinion in the Internet era, along with a rising Mainland China under globalization, is forcing rapid change on Taiwan. The wrong choice of ROC leader could force the entire nation to pay a painful price. Former president Chen Shui-bian and current president Ma Ying-jeou presidents are well-known examples. But another kind of leader is even worse, a leader afraid to make decisions. Such a leader will destroy Taiwan's chances and throttle Taiwan's lifeblood.

Full Text Below:

Rising public opinion in the Internet era, along with a rising Mainland China under globalization, is forcing rapid change on Taiwan. The wrong choice of ROC leader could force the entire nation to pay a painful price. Former president Chen Shui-bian and current president Ma Ying-jeou presidents are well-known examples. But another kind of leader is even worse, a leader afraid to make decisions. Such a leader will destroy Taiwan's chances and throttle Taiwan's lifeblood.

Decisions are often multi-faceted. Right or wrong are often compromises. In other words, the decisions made by national leaders are seldom absolutely right. They are merely relatively wrong.  If one is decisive, one may confuse failure with success. But if one is indecisive, whatever was right with one's policy may remain unseen, while whatever was wrong will become highly visible. One will wind up spinning one's wheels and going nowhere. Any opportunity to minimize the damage will be lost, and the nation's strength will be eroded.

Tsai Ing-wen's refusal to lead remains our greatest concern. On February 14, Tsai Ing-wen posted an article on Facebook, entitled "Pioneering an Era that Truly Belongs to the People". Her 1500 word delaration concerning the DPP presidential primaries revealed no signs of leadership or concrete policy proposals. All that remained was a disclaimer that "I am not Chen Shui-bian. I am not Ma Ying-jeou."

Based on Tsai Ing-wen's words and deeds over the years, she is indeed not Chen Shui-bian. Nor is she Ma Ying-jeou. But this by itself is hardly reassuring or encouraging. Neither Ma nor Chen are models of leadership. Chen Shui-bian was too pragmatic and opportunistic. He abused his power, engaged in corruption power, and sowed pandemonium. Ma Ying-jeou, by contrast, inhabited an ivory tower. He was inflexible and knew only how to "go by the book". He alienated the people and lost their hearts and minds. But at least these two presidents had a sense of direction. They were at least willing to make decisions.

What about Tsai Ing-wen? She does not appear to be as opportunistic as Chen Shui-bian. But neither does she appear to be sufficiently pragmatic. She is not as inflexible as Ma Ying-jeou. But she also lacks Ma Ying-jeou's burning idealism. This convinces us that Tsai Ing-wen is neither Chen Shui-bian nor Ma Ying-jeou. But not being Ma or Chen does no mean that Tsai Ing-wen will be a good leader. For this, we must observe Tsai Ing-wen's behavior.

Tsai Ing-wen always answers a question with a question. She never provides any answers. When asked about her position on the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, she passed the buck to Ma Ying-jeou. She said, "The AIIB issue has provoked tremendous controversy over the past few days. After seven years, President Ma Ying-jeou still does not seem to understand why so many people are suspicious, lack trust, and cannot relax." So, should Taiwan join the AIIB? Tsai refused to answer. But the opportunities the AIIB will bring to Taiwan will not wait. A Eurasian tectonic plate is taking shape. The global landscape is changing. The world will not wait for Taiwan.

When the time comes to make decisions, Tsai Ing-wen habitually passes the buck to "public opinion". She refuses to state her own views. When asked why she went from supporting the cabinet system to opposing the cabinet system, she gave a short answer. "Current mainstream public opinion demands direct presidential elections." She refused to say that the cabinet system was bad, and that was why she opposed it. She merely passed the buck on to "mainstream public opinion."

Whenever a decision must be made, Tsai Ing-wen often resorts to procedural obfuscation, thereby ducking questions of substance. When addressing constitutional reform, Tsai Ing-wen never forgets to mention the threshold requirement for a "national conference". If the KMT disagrees, and constitutional reform is delayed, she blames the KMT. If the KMT agrees, and the President convenes a conference, Tsai Ing-wen adds procedural obstacles. She asserts that "The current government has entered the caretaker government stage. It lacks the necessary public confidence." She opposes the President convening a national conference. She ignores the fact that historically speaking national conferences have always been convened by the President, as they are duly authorized to do so. This sort of "head I win, tails you lose" strategy may matter little when one is an opposition leader. But this is not genuine leadership. If this is how Tsai Ing-wen intends to govern once elected president, we should all be worried.

We must remind Tsai Ing-wen that when the people elect a leader, they are not electing a yes-man who refers everything to "mainstream public opinion". If "mainstream public opinion" becomes an excuse for shirking responsibility, then we may as well make a polling company president. Everything will be decided by "mainstream public opinion". No policy debate will be required.  Everytyhing will be decided by large sample public opinion polls. After all, "mainstream public opinion" has the final say.

A society unable to solve problems cannot progress. A leader who shirks responsibility, cannot lead a society and resolve its problems. Taiwan faces many tangled structural problems. Chen Shui-bian and Ma Ying-jeou enjoyed highly popularity when first elected. Voters overlooked two considerations, the fact that neither man saw the larger picture. As a result the nation's problems worsened. ROC voters need a more rigorous test of leadership ability, one with a high degree of transparency. Only then can Taiwan break the impasse. Tsai Ing-wen boasts that she is neither Chen Shui-bian nor Ma Ying-jeou. That is not a bad thing. But never taking a stand, and never making a decision, in order to evade voter scrutiny, is even more worrisome than Ma Ying-jeou or Chen Shui-bian.

Our advice to Tsai Ing-wen is the very phrase she often repeats, "Think about it". Thinking about it is the last thing Tsai Ing-wen needs. What she needs to do is offer concrete proposals for public scrutiny.

社論－空心蔡英文可能比馬扁更可怕
2015年04月13日 04:10 主筆室

網路時代高漲的民意、全球化浪潮下中國大陸的崛起，推動台灣進入超高速變遷時代，國家領導人巨變中的一個錯誤決定，就可能讓整個國家付出慘痛的代價，從過去陳水扁到現在馬英九兩任總統執政過程已屢見不鮮。但還有一種更糟糕的領導人，就是不做決定的領導人，這種領導人，會貽誤台灣的機會、掐死台灣的命脈。

決策常帶有多面性，對錯往往是比重的問題，也就是說，國家領導人面對的選項中並沒有絕對對的決策，只有相對錯得較少的決策，而且決策後如果具有強大的執行力，往往就能易錯為對。但不做決策，將使得對的一面無法彰顯，錯的一面卻不會消失，原地空轉的結果，會讓台灣連做「錯誤最少」、「傷害最小」決定的機會都流失，讓國家力量逐漸消蝕。

這種「不領導的領導性格」，是我們對蔡英文最大的憂心。今年2月14日蔡英文在臉書發表〈開創一個真正屬於人民的時代〉聲明，宣布投入民進黨總統初選，在1500字的聲明中，看不到她以領導高度提出具體的國政主張，只留下一句媒體標題：「我不是陳水扁，不是馬英九，我是蔡英文。」

從蔡英文過去這些年角逐總統大位時的言行，她確實不是陳水扁，也不是馬英九。然而，這並不因此讓人覺得安心或欣慰。馬與扁都不被認為是好的領導典範，陳水扁有太強烈的務實或投機性格，甚至濫權乃至於涉貪涉弊，把台灣搞得烏煙瘴氣；馬英九卻有著太不食人間煙火的理想性，不知變通、激怒眾方，弄得離心離德。但這兩位總統至少都是有方向感，肯做決定的領導人。

蔡英文呢？她的投機性沒有陳水扁那麼強烈，但似乎也沒有足夠的務實性，她不像馬英九那麼不知變通，但也缺乏馬英九那種為理想灼身的使命感。這些都讓我們相信蔡英文不是陳水扁或馬英九。然而不是馬、不是扁的蔡英文，卻未必是好的領導人。這可以從蔡英文的行為模式觀察。

遇到質詢，蔡英文總是反問，而不給答案。當問及她對亞投行的態度時，她把問題拋向馬英九：「亞投行議題這幾天引發極大的爭議，經過了7年，馬英九總統似乎還是不明白，為什麼人民對他有這麼多質疑、這麼不信任、不放心？」台灣該不該加入亞投行？她沒回答。但亞投行帶來的機會，不會等台灣。歐亞大板塊正在形成，全球大格局正在改變，世界不會等台灣。

該當選擇時，蔡英文習慣推給民意，不表達己見。當外界問及她為什麼從支持內閣制改為反對內閣制時，她給了12字的回答：「目前主流民意堅持總統直選」。她沒有說內閣制有哪些不好，所以反對，敷衍地把球丟給了「主流民意」。

需要下決定時，蔡英文經常訴求程序，迴避實質主張。談到憲改，蔡英文不忘加「國是會議」的程序門檻，國民黨不同意，拖延憲改的責難就落在國民黨頭上，但當國民黨同意由總統府召開時，蔡英文就再加一個程序障礙，以「這個政府已經進入看守狀態，民眾信賴不足」為由，反對由總統府召開國是會議，不理會台灣有史以來國是會議都由總統府召集的慣例，以及主政者召開本身的正當性。這是一種不失分策略，當她是在野黨領袖時，影響不大，但如果這種「不領導的領導」就是蔡英文選上總統後的治國模式，就讓人憂心萬分了。

對此，我們必須提醒蔡英文，人民選的是「領導者」，不是凡事拿「主流民意」當藉口的「應聲蟲」。如果「主流民意」變成了不負責的理由產生器，那麼，台灣讓時下最夯的大數據公司當總統就好。凡事都透過大數據調查「主流民意」再決定政策，不需要政策論辯與損益檢驗，因為「主流民意」說了算。

沒有解決問題能力的社會，不會進步，迴避問題的領導人，不可能帶領社會解決問題。台灣面對眾多糾結的結構性問題，陳水扁與馬英九競選期間的高人氣，讓選民輕忽了對二人的檢驗，忽略了他們思考不全面的毛病，使國家糾結的問題愈結愈緊。從這一點來看，台灣需要一個經過選民嚴格檢驗、高透明度的新形態領導人，才能領導台灣突破困局。蔡英文自詡不是陳水扁與馬英九，這不是壞事，但凡事不表態、不做決定，以逃避選民檢驗，那麼，她可能比馬英九或陳水扁更加令人擔心。

我們給蔡英文的建議是，她常常掛在口中的兩個字是「想想」，但蔡英文目前最不缺的就是「想想看」，而是拿出具體主張接受檢驗。