To Boost the Economy, Change the System

To Boost the Economy, Change the System
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
August 9, 2016

Executive Summary: Ruling parties may change. Political parties may disappear. But not on Taiwan. The new government must address the problems of government. Otherwise it cannot implement policy. Private investment will shrink. Taiwan's economy will never recover. During the 1980s, the United States had Reagan, and Britain had Thatcher. These leaders were decisive and courageous. They enabled their countries to return to the right path. Taiwan has experienced serious problems with governance since the lifting of martial law. It too needs a new system of government, and courageous leaders able to solve problems. Is Tsai Ing-wen such a leader? Can she regain control over Taiwan?

Full Text Below:

The new government has been in power just over two months. Yet hardly one of its policies has escaped condemnation. Hardly one of its actions has escaped protest. The government failed to properly assess its policies before implementing them. The Democratic Progressive Party advocated one policy when it was out of power, but has reversed itself entirely upon its return to power. This is the “hairpin turn phenomenon” that everyone speaks of. It is part of the problem. But the real problem is the gradual disintegration of the nation's system of government. If this problem is not addressed, the economy will only get worse.

Taiwan's economy has been in the doldrums for some time. Both exports and investments have declined. Exports have declined for 17 consecutive months. July data was positive. But with the decline in the global economy, foreign think tanks have steadily lowered their economic forecasts, further marginalizing Taiwan's trade competitiveness. It is difficult to be optimistic about exports. The economy now needs a boost in investments. Unfortunately Taiwan's system of government is increasingly problematic. Both private and public investment have been affected.

Taiwan's system of government requires the government to make compromises between public opinion and the rule of law. It must do this to promote different policies and obtain the best results. But the reality is that Taiwan's system of government has disintegrated. It has lost its legitimacy. It is no longer able to resolve disputes in accordance with the rule of law. The disintegration of Taiwan's system of government has been going on for some time. It collapsed completely during the Ma's second term. Major protest movements, including the Tai Po case, the Wen Lin Yuan case, the Hung Chung-chiu case, and the Sunflower Student Movement, all undermined the authority of the government. Populist sentiment, expressed online, became the deciding force for society and even the government.

The government can no longer promote policy in a rational and professional manner. In the absence of rational debate, the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant was mothballed. The Number One Nuclear Power Plant cannot be started. This summer threatens brownouts. The Executive Yuan under Lin Chuan is pandering to populist sentiment. Media mogul Rex How says he "suspects Taipower of understating its generating capacity". He would "open Taipower up to public oversight", enabling  non-professionals to rifle through Taipower's files and obtain confidential information and data.

Consider how the new government has dealt with labor strikes and legal holidays. It failed to carefully assess the situation beforehand or undertake careful planning. It failed to communicate and coordinate. It failed to address the protesters' grievances. The moment protests intensified, it timidly backed down. The result was endless policy flip-flops that curried favor with no one, and rendered problems even more intractable. Power shortages are now more likely. A nuclear-free homeland is DPP policy. Starting up the Number One Nuclear Power Plant when faced of power shortages, is not incompatible with a nuclear-free homeland. But the government lacks the necessary courage. EIAs have long affected investments. When the DPP returned to power, it failed to address this problem. By holding high the banner of environmental protection, the government made companies afraid to invest.

It is difficult to be optimistic about the future. The Ma government promoted FEPZs. But many citizens groups opposed them. They even “declared war” on them. The Tsai government yearns to join the TPP. It too faces naysayers. The new government wants to build public housing. It wants  public office buildings even more. But what should be done about nail houses, and opposition from nearby residents and civic groups? The government has no solutions. Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je enjoys high approval ratings. But when he promoted several large-scale urban planning projects, including the Nangang Bottling Plant and the Western District Renewal Plan (Mitsui Warehouse relocation), academics and citizens groups vehemently opposed him.

Simply put, any investment plan on Taiwan today, is going to run into opposition. Some will come from representative citizen groups. Others from small, non-representative extremist groups. The past system of government is utterly impotent. The World Bank studied the reasons why economic development in Africa is so difficult. It concluded the problem was a "crisis of government" afflicting incompetent and corrupt governments. Taiwan's crisis of government reflects the rise of social forces, and an inability to adopt a new model of government. The result, problems with economic development, is the same.

Social change and the rise of the Internet have made different forces harder to control. Trends fueled by politicians are even more important. When the Ma government was in office, virtually all opposition parties sided with civic organizations. They supported civic groups and public protests. They even backed the Sunflower Student Movement, opposed textbook reform, and opposed every policy advanced by the Ma government. The DPP successfully destroyed the Kuomintang and reacquired power. But in the process, it destroyed Taiwan's system of government. Now it is reaping what it sowed.

Ruling parties may change. Political parties may disappear. But not on Taiwan. The new government must address the problems of government. Otherwise it cannot implement policy. Private investment will shrink. Taiwan's economy will never recover. During the 1980s, the United States had Reagan, and Britain had Thatcher. These leaders were decisive and courageous. They enabled their countries to return to the right path. Taiwan has experienced serious problems with governance since the lifting of martial law. It too needs a new system of government, and courageous leaders able to solve problems. Is Tsai Ing-wen such a leader? Can she regain control over Taiwan?

提振經濟須先解決治理崩壞
2016/8/9 中國時報

新政府上台兩個多月，幾乎沒有一項政策不挨罵，沒有一項作為不被抗議，政府在政策確定前欠缺周詳考量評估，或甚至民進黨由在野到在朝的轉彎問題（髮夾彎現象），固然是因素之一，但更重要的恐怕是台灣的國家治理正逐漸崩解中。台灣如果不能解決治理問題，經濟恐怕只會每況愈下。

台灣經濟低迷久矣，而且是從出口到投資全線潰敗。已連續衰退17個月的出口，雖然7月數據已轉正，但在全球經濟走低，國際智庫都已連續調降全球經濟成長率預測值後，加上台灣競爭力與經貿邊緣化問題，未來出口難期待有太亮麗的表現。此時正是需要以投資提振經濟的時候，但遺憾的是台灣的治理問題日益嚴重，不論是民間投資或是公共投資，都將因此受影響。

所謂的治理問題，是政府在民意與法令間取得平衡，推動各項施政並取得最佳成效的能力。但台灣政府治理的的現實是：國家（或是政府）權威崩解，越來越難依照法令、制度解決爭議與問題。台灣治理弱化問題由來已久，馬政府第2任期更全面崩壞，幾次重大抗議事件，從大埔案、文林苑案、洪仲丘案到太陽花學運，政府權威下滑，網路民粹成為社會、甚至政府決策主導力。

政府再也難以理性與專業的方式推動政策，在缺乏理性辯論情況下，核四遭到封存，核一機組也不能啟動，今年暑假立刻面臨限電危機。林全的行政院更進一步向民粹屈服，出版業者郝明義「懷疑台電藏電」，就打著「開放台電，民間監督」旗號，帶著非專業人士進入台電，索取機密資料與數據。

再如新政府對罷工、勞工休假問題之處理，也可看出政府既未事前審慎評估規畫，又缺乏溝通協調、化解抗爭的能力；抗議聲起，又膽怯退縮，讓政策搖擺不已，結果兩面不討好，問題至今難解。缺電風險提高，非核家園固然是民進黨政策，但在缺電風險中啟用核一機組，其實並不違背非核家園政策，但政府不敢為之。環評過去就一直被視為影響投資的重要因素，民進黨上台後不但未能解決，在高舉環保旗幟下，企業更不敢投資。

展望未來，情勢仍難樂觀。馬政府推自經區計畫，許多公民團體反對，甚至不惜說要對自經區「宣戰」；蔡政府要推加入TPP，同樣要面對那些反對者；新政府要廣建公宅，公辦都更必須大力推動，但對如何化解釘子戶、甚至附近居民反對，以及公民團體的抗爭，仍毫無解方。即使是上任時聲望甚高的台北市市長柯文哲，要推動的幾項大型都市計畫，從南瓶案到西區變革計畫（三井倉庫遷移），都碰上文化人與公民團體強力反對抗爭。

簡單的說，台灣現在任何投資計畫，都要碰上反對聲浪，有些是來自有代表性的公民團體，但也有不少是毫無代表性、極度偏執、人數也少的所謂公民團體，過去的治理模式幾乎全然失效。世界銀行在檢討非洲經濟難以發展的問題時，曾以「治理危機」形容與詮釋，非洲的治理危機大半是來自政府的無能與貪腐，台灣現在的治理危機則來自社會力量上揚，政府無能找出新治理模式，但其導致經濟難以發展的結果，則是相同。

有此結果，除了社會變遷、網路興起，讓各種不同的力量更難控制外，政客的推波助瀾更是重要原因。當年馬政府時期，在野黨幾乎全部站在民間反對力量的一方，支持公民團體、抗爭民眾，力挺學生（太陽花與反課綱等），反對所有馬政府的政策。民進黨成功毀壞了國民黨統治，贏得政權，但在這個過程中也讓台灣的治理崩壞，現在算是自食其果。

政黨可以輪替，甚至消失，但台灣不行，新政府必須解決治理問題，否則未來不僅政府施政寸步難行，民間投資也將全面縮手，台灣經濟絕難有起色。80年代的英國、美國，都曾賴柴契爾夫人、雷根等領導人的決斷與魄力，讓國家重歸治理正道；台灣在解嚴後也曾出現嚴重治理問題，同樣有賴新治理模式與領導人魄力解決。蔡英文是否能稱職扮演那個重拾台灣治理的領導人呢？