Lift the Curse of Short-Lived Cabinets: Premier Jiang Understands

Lift the Curse of Short-Lived Cabinets: Premier Jiang Understands
China Times editorial
Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
A Translation
February 20, 2013

Summary: The very first day Premier Jiang Yi-huah took office, he admonished cabinet members, "Ask not how long your term of office will be. Ask how many meaningful things you can accomplish on behalf of your country during that time." His words were inspirational. But his cabinet members may not have felt much inspiration in their hearts. After all, cabinets have been reshuffled so frequently over the years. .

Full Text below:

The very first day Premier Jiang Yi-huah took office, he admonished cabinet members, "Ask not how long your term of office will be. Ask how many meaningful things you can accomplish on behalf of your country during that time." His words were inspirational. But his cabinet members may not have felt much inspiration in their hearts. After all, cabinets have been reshuffled so frequently over the years. The premiers' terms may not have become shorter. But they have most assuredly not become longer. Cabinet members are expected to resign along with the premier. So how long can they expect to be around? This is not something cabinet members can calculate on their own. They must defer to the president and the premier above, and to the public below.

Sad to say, this harsh reality is undeniable. The ROC may be a mature democracy. But it derives its ethics from tradition, and its essence from the West. As a result, it has concocted a so-called dual leadership system. It has undergone ruling party changes. The minority Democratic Progressive Party government refused to comply with the principle of majority rule. This made it impossible to establish a parliamentary system. When the majority Kuomintang returned to power, it could not ensure cooperation between the KMT leadership and the ruling KMT government. Internal rivalry within the ruling KMT led repeated cabinet reshuffles. Seventeen years after the president was first popularly elected, the sole exception was Premier Vincent Siew, who served a relatively long four year term under Lee Teng-hui. Under Chen Shui-bian and Ma Ying-jeou, the average term for the premier was one year two months to one year four months. This is not so different from Japan, with its rampant political turmoil.

During the Two Chiangs Era, premiers served four to six years. Leave aside the authoritarian era for the moment. The early part of Lee Teng-hui's presidency was a period of political turmoil. The KMT was wracked by intense internal conflict. Li Huan served as premier for only one year. This was his fate. After direct presidential elections were implemented, Vincent Siew served a solid four-year term. During his term however, Lee Teng-hui leveled veiled criticisms. He complained that Siew was indecisive in dealing with the Southeast Asian financial crisis, and that Siew often invited fiscal policy expert Chen Po-chih and others to his official residence to lay out the groundwork on his behalf. Lee invoked these criticisms against his own premier. But Chen Po-chih served as Chairman of the CEPD during the Chen Shui-bian administration. His record was mediocre. The Chen administration went through six premiers in eight years. Leave aside Tang Fei's misfortune for the moment. What about the rest? What about Yu Shyi-kun, Chang Chun-hsiung, Frank Hsieh and Su Tseng-chang? They were obviously appointed, one after another, merely to accomodate certain political realities. Ma Ying-jeou probably never imagined that terms for premiers under his adminstration would be as short as they were under the Chen administration. He intended to give Liu Chao-hsuan at least two years to show results. But Liu became collateral damage when the Lehman Brothers scandal precipitated a global financial crisis. Miraculously Liu survived, only to fall victim to Typhoon Morakot. Liu survived two years, to be replaced by political veteran Wu Den-yih. Despite Wu's re-election, political reality prevailed. He could no longer stay on as premier. He was determined to stay on, but in the end could not defy public sentiment. This year Sean Chen had a hard time. But Ma Ying-jeou had an even harder time. Jiang Yi-huah has stepped up to the plate. As Ma Ying-jeou sees it, no matter what, he must survive next year's Six Municipalities Elections. But will events unfold as he hopes? Ma Ying-jeou is afraid to say. Judging by Premier Jiang's first address in the legislature, he is as well.

Normally nations with parliamentary systems are constrained by the number of seats held by each political party. Cabinet reshuffling is constrained by political reality. This is inevitable. For example, France's Third Republic (1875-1940) underwent 103 cabinet reshuffles in 65 years. The average cabinet lasted less than eight months. The Fourth Republic (1946-1958) underwent 26 cabinet reshuffles in 12 years. The average cabinet lasted less than six months. These are all abnormal phenomenon. But on Taiwan, when the minority Chen administration was in power, the majority KMT dared not demand a no confidence vote. To mollify dissenters inside his own party, Chen kept changing premiers. By contrast, when the majority Ma administration was in power, all the minority party needed to do, was to open its mouth and denounce the Ma administration. This would panic the administration and make it replace premiers. Is this normal? This can be characterized as political reality, but it is hardly conducive to the national progress.

Premier Jiang addressed the legislature for the first time. He asked cabinet members to review their own proposals, and to present them to the public in one month. The seated cabinet members remained expressionless or pretended nothing was wrong. Did Premier Jiang really issue a military command? Or must President Ma or Chairman Ma issue such a command? Just whose commands will be obeyed? Unless Ma and Jiang are on the same page, and the party and the government are as well, chaos will prevail. Even Jiang Yi-huah, a PhD. in political science, will have trouble coping.

Now consider the Mainland's party leaders, government leaders, and military leaders. They serve at least ten years before being replaced. What can a person accomplish in ten years? Even rank novices can become old hands in ten years. Of course, the Mainland political system is totally different. The two systems cannot be compared. But from a purely managerial perspective, what mature and stable corporation changes CEOs every year? Any large corporation that passes the torch is likely to succumb to price shocks. Why else would TSMC Chairman Morris Chang return after retiring, other than to ensure effective management?

The Jiang Cabinet has stepped up to the plate. The mess left behind by Jiang's predecessors has yet to be cleaned up. Future challenges loom largeer than previously imagined. . No one wants to talk about long-term planning. The lifespan for Chen administration and Ma administration premiers has been barely over a year. Talk of plans spanning more than two years are the butt of jokes. The job is difficult, but must be done. The plans before the administration may be short-term or long-term. But all it can do is treat the symptoms. It can talk about addressing the root of the problem. But those charged with addressing the symptoms must show immediate results. Otherwise sound programs that are not yet complete will be denounced and dismissed. They will no longer enjoy political support. President Ma has put the economy first. Put bluntly, the cabinet must first provide the public with a cure that can be felt. The cure must take effect within the span of a legislative session. Otherwise, it will make no difference how good the composition of the cabinet is.

突破短命內閣魔咒 江揆須拚短期有感
2013-02-20
中國時報

新任行政院長江宜樺上任第一天，要求閣員「不要問你的任期有多久，要問你在任期中替國家做了多少有意義的事情。」這句話，講來動人心魄，然而，聽在閣員心中可能別有一番滋味；畢竟這麼些年來，內閣更迭頻繁，閣揆任期即使不是愈來愈短，但總是不長，閣員永遠只能隨閣揆總辭。到底能做多久？這個算盤不是閣員能主動操諸於己，還得上看總統與院長，下看民意與輿論。

講起來傷感，卻不能不承認這個現實，台灣雖是個民主成熟的社會，但是，台灣的民主體制既從傳統找倫理、又從西方找菁華，最後搞出一個不知道算是什麼的雙首長制，還經過政黨輪替，少數執政的民進黨政府既不遵守多數黨組閣的政治原理，無法創建一個傾向內閣制的慣例；多數執政的國民黨政府在再輪替之後的執政又無法落實黨政一體，七手八腳的多數執政依舊讓內閣更迭頻繁。民選總統後的十七年，除了李登輝選後四年用了一任四年的行政院長蕭萬長，尚稱長命之外，從陳水扁到馬英九，歷任行政院長任期平均不過一年兩個月到一年四個月，比諸日本政局之動盪，所差無幾。

兩蔣時代閣揆任期四到六年，威權時代存而不論，李登輝主政前期屬政治動盪期，國民黨內流派之爭劇烈，李煥任閣揆僅一年，是時也命也。民選之後，蕭萬長紮紮實實做了四年，這期間李登輝對他還頗有微詞，嫌他對東南亞金融風暴處理不夠明快，常在官邸找財經學者陳博志等籌畫主張，用以批評自己的院長，結果陳博志在扁政府出任經建會主委，建樹也不過爾爾。扁政府八年用掉六任五位院長，唐飛時運不濟不論，其他從游錫?、張俊雄、謝長廷、蘇貞昌，擺明了是安撫政治現實的排班輪流做。馬英九大概從沒想到自己任命的行政院長任期也如扁政府這麼短，找上劉兆玄開宗明義是要他至少兩年做出成績，雷曼兄弟引爆的全球金融風暴是非戰之罪，好不容易頂過去卻碰上莫拉克風災；挨過兩年換上熟諳政治的吳敦義，連任之際卻又抵不過政治現實，再易閣揆，他是鐵了心不想換，卻鐵不過民意，這一年，陳?難挨，馬英九更難挨；江宜樺上陣，照馬英九的想法，好歹撐到明年底的六都選舉，但能否順心？馬英九不敢講，看江揆首次院會的發言，連江揆自己都不敢講。

照正常，內閣制國家受限於政黨席次，內閣頻繁改組受限於政治現實，勢所難免，比方說，法國第三共和（一八七五~一九四○），六十五年內內閣改組一○三次，平均壽命不到八個月；第四共和（一九四六~一九五八）十二年內內閣改組廿六次，平均任期不到六個月，這都是非正常現象。然而，台灣少數黨執政（扁政府）時多數黨不敢倒閣，為了擺平黨內，閣揆拚命換；多數黨執政（馬政府）少數黨只要開口罵，閣揆還是拚命換，這正常嗎？或許這可以稱之為政治現實，但是，絕對不利於國家發展。

江揆首次院會發此言，還要閣員多想想自己的主張，並於一個月內提出，舉座閣員泰半面無表情或故做無事狀，江揆真要立下軍令狀，還得向馬總統、馬主席請令，這軍令到底聽誰的算？除非馬江一心、黨政一體，否則這亂象，就是政治博士江宜樺也難解。

看看對岸的黨政軍國家領導人，任期至少十年一換，十年能做多少事？再不熟練也能練成老手；當然，兩岸政治體制迥然有別，不能相提並論，但是，就從單純的治理原則，有哪一個成熟且穩定發展的企業ＣＥＯ一年一換？任何大企業主事者要交棒都可能成為股價震盪的重要因素，台積電董事長張忠謀退休後又回鍋所為何來？不過是為了治理績效而已。

江內閣上陣，前人的攤子還沒收攏，未來的挑戰比想像的更大，談長期規畫無人肯信，畢竟從扁政府到馬政府，歷任內閣壽命不過一年多，但凡超過兩年的規畫就是遭人譏笑的話柄，事已難做卻還是得做。眼下之計，只能長短期、標本兼治，治本者要談得夠美，但治標者得立馬就有績效，否則好的方案沒規畫完就被罵到體無完膚，事也甭做了。馬總統開口拚經濟為先，說穿了，還是要內閣先開出讓人民有感的特效藥，立法院會期內就得見效，否則內閣陣容再美亦屬枉然。