Damage Control Will Not Sooth Public Discontent

Damage Control Will Not Sooth Public Discontent
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
July 31, 2013

Summary: Seven cabinet heads have been replaced. Is that a lot? Perhaps. The real spotlight is on the Ministry of National Defense and on the reorganization of the FSC. With the former, Kao Hua-chu has stepped down to sooth public discontent over the Hung Chung-chiu case. With the latter, Chen Yu-chang has stepped down to sooth official discontent among the financial sector and other cabinet members. Both are Ma administration damage control efforts.

Full text below:

Seven cabinet heads have been replaced. Is that a lot? Perhaps. The real spotlight is on the Ministry of National Defense and on the reorganization of the FSC. With the former, Kao Hua-chu has stepped down to sooth public discontent over the Hung Chung-chiu case. With the latter, Chen Yu-chang has stepped down to sooth official discontent among the financial sector and other cabinet members. Both are Ma administration damage control efforts.

Is soothing discontent the sole purpose of the cabinet reshuffle? Is the administration not fighting for some grander, more long range goal? If it is merely to win Brownie points, then at most it will stop the bleeding. Take the cabinet reshuffle. Seven cabinet heads have been replaced, yet the administration has won little praise if any. Clearly the new cabinet falls short of public expectations. If the Ma Chiang regime still hopes to turn the tide, it ought to be deeply concerned.

Take FSC Chairman Chen Yu-chang's resignation. Chen Yu-chang has been in office for over three years. His conservative manner provoked record dissatisfaction among the public and other cabinet members. But the system of tenure offered him protection. He was protected also because he was considered a Ma Ying-jeou crony. As a result, he survived the Wu Den-yih, Sean Chen, and Chiang Yi-hua cabinet reshuffles. He is currently being replaced only because the impenetrable shield around him was been nullified by organizational restructuring. What is truly mind-boggling is how on the eve of restructuring, five political appointees want Premier Chiang him to replace him. Forcing cabinet colleagues to tolerate a political appointee like him is unheard of. As the saying goes, "Inviting a person to enter is easy. Asking them to leave is difficult." That a political appointee who has incurred such wrath remains so pleased with himself is outrageous. An example like Chen Yu-chang is rare. But who appointed him to such an important position? Wasn't it President Ma?

Chen Yu-chang was not arrogant or difficult to communicate with. That was not his problem. His problem was his uttter failure to understand his official duties. Until the very last moment, Chen Yu-chang assumed he was fired because his strict supervision "offended too many people." In fact, his mistake was to conflate "supervision" with "management." He thought that by strangling financial institutions, he was doing his duty. The only thing in his head was the "management" powers in his hands. He neglected his duty to manage the government and promote the general welfare. He remembered only that industry needed management. He forgot the government's duty to create a suitable environment for e-commerce. His obstinacy stalled the Free Trade Zone Pilot Program over the issue of third party payments. To the financial industry this was intolerable. It stalled government decision-making and the development of new industries.  .

Chen Yu-chang was too conservative and too recalcitrant. Kao Hua-chu's voluntary resignation was a responsible move, but not if the sole motive was to stop the bleeding. As Hung Chung-chiu family members said, Kao Hua-chu was not the wrongdoer. Having him step down was not important. What was more important, was a government explanation of what happened. According to conventional political wisdom, a political appointee who has provoked massive resentment must resign, as a matter of course. But as the public sees it, the rule has gradually been weakened. The government must get to the bottom of the case. If it thinks that merely removing the Minister of National Defense can sooth discontent, it is much too naive.

Leave aside the individual ministers' performance for the moment. The Ma Chiang regime is the target of public discontent because it failed to promote the general welfare. Instead, it constantly engaged in damage control. But these attempts at damage control will be for naught. The government focuses its attention on a protest here, and a grievance there. Senior officials spend their time in the countryside explaining basic policy. How can they find time for visionary thinking? How can they find time to plan for Taiwan's development? Imagine a business organization whose management is concerned exclusively with procedural matters, and which takes three years to get anything done. What kind of performance could one expect from it?

Chen Yu-chang's removal from office suggests that Chiang YI-hua's reorganization has more legitimacy than than ever. He deservers recognition for political responsibility alone. But Taiwan's economic development has stagnated. Public anger radiates in all directions. The Ma Chiang regime has yet to rid itself of internal frictions. Therefore this can hardly be considered "good news." This is especially true when any random development could trigger a public reaction. Only government restructuring can address this discontent. The introduction of an elite clique cannot change the course of events. In any event, such responses are much too passive.

New people and a new cabinet would normally warrant congratulations. But the negative atmosphere and the lack of vision have left people wary. We can only remind the government that it must demonstrate a sense of vision, and a determination to promote the public welfare. Only then can the public be persuaded. If the Ma Chiang regime remains mired in damage control, it will not even be able to save itself.

紓怨何如興利：內閣須超越補破網思維
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.07.31 02:17 am

內閣七部會首長易人，幅度說大不大，真正受矚目的就是國防部和金管會的改組。前者，高華柱下台自是為了紓解洪仲丘案引發的「民怨」；後者，陳裕璋去職是為了紓解金融界和其他閣員不滿的「官怨」。兩者，皆為了馬政府之停損。

內閣改組的目的若竟只為「紓怨」，而不是為了更宏遠的衝刺與戰力提升，是為了「減少失分」，而不是為了「增加得分」，至多也只能得到「止血」的效果。看這次改組，七個部會首長的異動，竟未博得外界幾許掌聲；可見，新的內閣陣容和外界對行政團隊的整體期待，仍距離甚遠。對「馬江體制」而言，若還有力挽狂瀾之圖，這點深值警惕。

先談金管會主委陳裕璋之去職。陳裕璋在任三年多，其行事保守招致外界不滿與閣員抨擊之紀錄盈筐，卻因有「任期制」之保障，加上「馬英九親信幕僚」之名護身，安然歷經了吳敦義、陳?、江宜樺三任內閣；至今，才得因組織改造解除其「金鐘罩」，將他撤換。最令人瞠目結舌的是，改組前夕，傳聞有五名政務委員擬聯名上書請求江揆將他撤換；如此讓內閣同僚忍無可忍的政務官，恐怕是前所未聞。所謂「請神容易，送神難」，一名政務官能做到如此天怒人怨卻仍怡然自得，陳裕璋委實是罕見的例子；然而，將他放到這個大位上的始作俑者，不正是馬總統？

陳裕璋的問題，不在於他為人多麼傲慢難以溝通，而在他完全錯看了自己的官位。直到最後一刻，陳裕璋還以為自己下台的原因是由於嚴格監理而「得罪了一缸子人」；事實上，他之所以不稱職，是以為金管會的權責就是「監督」和「管理」，以為把金融機構掐得死死的，就是盡職。他心中想的，只有手上「管理」的權力，卻忽略了政府施政要與時俱進，為國家興利；他只記得產業秩序需要管理，卻忘了為產業發展打造合理的環境條件也是政府的要務。由於一人的固執，網路業者的發展卡在「第三方支付」，自由經濟示範區的開張卡在「金融業」難容，都讓政府決策及新興產業發展一路遲滯。

相對於陳裕璋之保守與頑抗，高華柱的主動請辭，則表現了負責的態度；但若以為這有助於洪案之止血，只怕不然。誠如洪仲丘家屬所言，做錯事的不是高華柱，他下不下台並不重要，更重要的是政府要交代真相。依傳統的政治智慧，政務官為滔天民怨而引咎辭職，是當然之事；但從民間的智慧看，這一定律已經逐漸打破，政府若無法將真相弄個水落石出，卻以為國防部長之撤換即可以紓怨轉運，恐怕是太天真的想法。

事實上，拋開個別閣員的表現與功過不談，目前「馬江體制」陷入民怨泉湧的困境，主要原因是執政團隊缺乏積極作為的「興利」思維，每天都在那裡「補破網」，結果必然是勞而無獲。當政府的全副精力都用來應付東一場抗議、西一個民怨，當高層官員每天都耗在下鄉說明基本政策，怎麼可能有時間進行前瞻思考，又如何有餘裕為台灣的大發展籌謀規畫？試想，如果是一家企業，出現一個墨守成規的管理幹部卻一拖三年無奈他何，這家企業的績效還能期待嗎？

陳裕璋的撤換，意味江宜樺在這次改組取得了較以往更多的主導權，就責任政治的精神而言，這點值得肯定。然而，當台灣經濟發展的腳步停滯不前，當社會大眾的怒火在四面八方延燒，「馬江體制」卻還未擺脫「內部磨合」的拉扯，恐怕也難稱之「可喜」。尤其，當隨便一個事件就能引發民間強烈的情緒反應，政府竟只能藉改組來紓解民怨，而不是推出一支精銳部隊來旋乾轉坤，無論如何，此一部署仍過顯消極。

新人新政，本該說些恭賀的話；但現實的氛圍和缺乏宏圖的安排，都讓人不得不持保留態度。我們只能提醒：重要的是要展現作為企圖，拿出興利政績，才能讓人民有感。若馬江體制一直停留在「補破網」的思維，那恐怕連自救都不夠。