How Can the Ma Administration Redeem Itself?

How Can the Ma Administration Redeem Itself?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
August 7, 2013

Summary: To characterize the Ma administration as "bruised and battered" would be an understatement. President Ma's low personal approval rating is perhaps most embarrassing of all. His public support continues to slide. It is even lower than that of President Chen Shui-bian's when he finally stepped down. The Hung Chung-chiu case rages on. President Ma has repeatedly bowed and apologized. As he walked to Hung Chung-chiu's funeral, members of the public hurled insults at him. Surely he can never forget the look in people's eyes. He must find it unbearable.

Full text below:

To characterize the Ma administration as "bruised and battered" would be an understatement. President Ma's low personal approval rating is perhaps most embarrassing of all. His public support continues to slide. It is even lower than that of President Chen Shui-bian's when he finally stepped down. The Hung Chung-chiu case rages on. President Ma has repeatedly bowed and apologized. As he walked to Hung Chung-chiu's funeral, members of the public hurled insults at him. Surely he can never forget the look in people's eyes. He must find it unbearable.

President Ma himself is honest and upright. His entire ruling team is also industrious, His cabinet members have worked hard. They have worked so hard that Premier Chiang told them, "It is time to take a break." What is one to make of the situation?

One cannot say that the administration has done nothing. During an internal KMT meeting, President Ma choked back tears. He spoke of ECFA, and of visa-free treatment from over one hundred countries. He could not understand the gap between his self image and public opinion. Premier Chiang Yi-hua underscored the need to make the public understand that the government is actually doing something. Obviously the administration is aware of and afraid of public discontent, and wants to do better.

The government has been doing something. But it has not done them right, or done them well. The long economic slump has led to accumulated grievances. Consider recent headlines. At times the people need the government, but the government appears indifferent. This happened during the Kuang Ta Hsing incident. At times the people do not need the government, but the government insists on meddling regardless. This happened during the Ta Pu case. At times the government may do something that affects the public, but fails to communicate in advance. This happened with TISA. The public may express disagreement, but feel it is being manipulated. This happened with the referendum on the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant. Such scenes have been reenacted again and again. People have certain expectations from government. They have placed their trust in public authority. But the government is often ahead of the curve at one moment, then behind the curve the next. As a result, it is perceived as incompetent.

The government is often incompetent. It works hard, but it fails to work well. It is often damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't. Often the more it does, the worse the results. A number of examples come to mind. One. It formulates the correct policy, but is terrified to come forth to defend it. This includes little things such as electricity rate hikes to reduce consumption. This are consistent with environmental principles, yet the government does not dare to defend it. This includes big things such as TISA. The government allowed opponents to shrilly denounce it. The ruling party was afraid to raise a peep. The government's failure to communicate in advance is one of its major failings. In fact, liberalization is both universal and inevitable. The government's ECDC agreement with New Zealand failed to meet public expectations regarding major Kiwifruit price cuts. Meanwhile, Shi Ya-ping defended TISA by arguing that beauty parlors would feel little impact. How can this style of governance win any respect? How can it convince the public that its policies are beneficial?

Two. The government makes the same mistake, over and over again. During the U.S. beef imports controversy, the government was wrong to make a commitment to the United States first, then communicate and consult with the legislature after the fact. During TISA negotiations, it made exactly the same mistake. It makes the same mistake over and over again. What's worse, it shirks responsibility and passes the buck. The recent conduct of the military is a good example. During Typhoon Morakot, it blamed inaccurate weather forecasts. The U.S. beef imports controversy was the result of the newly appointed Director of Health Yang Chi-liang's verbal gaffes. Government officials never admit "I made a mistake. I am responsible."

Three. As soon as the government feels any political heat, it changes its tune, and reverses its policy. This has virtually become a trademark of Ma administration decision-making. This happened with subsidies for elderly farmers, the capital gains tax, 12 year compulsory education, and the accounting farce in the legislature. All of them reveal a lack of a guiding principles in its decision-making. All of them reveal an unseemly eagerness to pander to mob sentiment.

Four. The government often fails to compromise on policy. It often favors certain special interest groups. Its pension reform favored civil service employees over labor. Its business tax cuts favored industry but allowed the treasury to suffer. Meanwhile, basic wages are raised by the price of a "hard boiled egg," and only after all manner of foot-dragging. This uneven distribution of wealth is a major source of resentment. The government's decision-making lacks coherence. No wonder the public always feel that the government is robbing the poor to pay the rich.

In sum, the government does not dare to come forward and defend its policies. It repeats the same mistakes, over and over. It is indifferent to right and wrong. Whenever it encounters public resistance, it performs an about face. Whenever it changes its policy, it leaves the impression that it has caved in to special interest groups. This manner of governance has left us with an administration indifferent to right and wrong, and afraid to stick to its principles during the formulation and implementation of policy. Whenever a controversy arises, it runs for cover. How can such an administration not create chaos?

The government has been blasted so long and so hard it has lost confidence in itself. This is not good for the remaining three years of the Ma administration. We hope however, that the administration will try to pull itself together and govern well. Recently, during a White Shirts gathering on Ketegelan Boulevard, Premier Chiang Yi-hua made a public commitment to radical reform. This is a case of "better late than never." But it may restore some degree of public confidence. We hope the government will rid itself of its wooden image as soon as possible. We hope it will spring back into action, and demonstrate courage and wisdom. Only then can it redeem itself in the eyes of the public.
  
馬政府如何從倒地的民意中爬起來？
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.08.07 01:28 am

馬政府近日處境，用「焦頭爛額」都不足以形容，其中又以馬總統本人的境況最窘。他的民意支持度持續下滑，竟然比卸任時「聲名狼藉」的陳水扁總統還低。在延燒的洪仲丘案中，馬總統不僅三番兩次低頭道歉，在走向洪仲丘告別式會場的短短路上頻遭民眾辱罵，他必然刻骨銘心；看在民眾眼裡，則更感不堪。

馬總統本人清廉自持，整個執政團隊也堪稱勤勞，閣員個個操勞到由江揆督促「該去休假」的地步。這種景況，孰令致之？

執政團隊當然不能說完全沒做事。馬總統在國民黨內座談時一度哽咽，細數有關簽署ＥＣＦＡ、百國免簽等政績，似乎不解自己形象和民意落差從何而來。行政院長江宜樺也曾在一場演講中強調，要讓外界感受到「政府有做事」。顯然執政團隊都認知、也戒慎恐懼於民意不滿的壓力，希望有所改善。

政府不是沒做事，但沒把事情做對、做好。姑且不論長期經濟不振所累積出的民怨，就以喧騰近期的重大新聞而言，人民需要政府時，卻感受不到政府協助（如廣大興號事件）；不需要政府時，卻被強力介入或侵害（如大埔案）；政府做事會影響到人民，卻事先不溝通、不徵詢（如服貿協議）；人民表達異議，卻感覺受到糊弄（如核四公投）。這些場景一再上演，人民對政府本來具有一定的期待，對公權力有一定的信任，但現在政府的角色「忽焉在前，忽焉在後」，也因此落得「政府失能」的評價。

政府失能，努力做事卻做不對，不但動輒得咎，且越做越亂。其中，犖犖大者諸如：第一，政策是對的也不敢挺身辯護。小事如電價上漲的「以價制量」，具環保原則卻不敢力爭；大事如兩岸服貿協議，反對聲音罵得凶，執政黨幾乎囁嚅不敢多言。政策缺乏事前溝通固然是一大缺失，但國際間的開放潮流原是必然趨勢。政府對台紐間的經合協定，尚知推銷「奇異果大降價」的社會期待；對兩岸服貿協議的效果，卻僅有由史亞平上美容院以示「不會衝擊很大」那種檔次的辯護。這種風格，如何贏得敬重？又如何說服民眾政策有利民生？

第二，做錯的一錯再錯。當年美牛風波，錯在政府對美承諾在先，與國會溝通協商在後；這次服貿協議，程序上完全重蹈覆轍。不但一錯再錯，且習於諉過卸責，最近軍方的表現堪稱例證。其他，例如八八風災怪罪氣象預報不準，美牛風波歸責於當時上任未久的衛生署長楊志良失言，完全看不出政府官員表現出「我做錯，我擔當」的氣魄。

第三，一遇民意壓力立即轉彎，政策反覆，幾乎已成馬政府決策風格的「標章」。老農津貼、證所稅、十二年國教的排富條款、會計法立院鬧劇……，均可看出決策缺乏中心思想，為了迎合民意不時轉彎妥協。

第四，政策非僅妥協，還往往向特定利益團體傾斜。例如年金改革，輕勞工而重公務員。營所稅調降，對企業利多，讓國庫大失血；但對基本工資僅一顆「茶葉蛋」程度的調整，卻百般計較。貧富不均本已是民怨來源，決策方向又缺乏首尾一致的原則，難怪人民的印象總覺得政府劫貧濟富。

總的來說：對的政策也不敢挺身辯護；做錯的則一錯再錯；不問黑白，遇到民意壓力就轉彎；不辨對錯，轉彎總讓人感覺向特定利益團體那方妥協。這種風格，使整個行政體系在制訂和執行政策時不敢堅持是非，一遇爭議能閃就閃。如此，行政秩序怎能不大亂？

政府現在被民意罵得有點失去信心了，對剩下不到三年任期的馬政府絕非好事。但望執政團隊還有勵精圖治、扳回一城的企圖，如日前江宜樺院長在白衫軍聚集凱道的同時，就公開作出改革承諾，且劍及履及啟動修法，這種「遲來總比不做好」的態度，至少對修補人民信心有點作用。希望政府儘快擺脫「木頭人」的形象，回復行動力，拿出魄力和智慧，才有機會從倒地的民意中爬起來。