United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
November 17, 2016
Executive Summary: Controversy over the importation of food products from Japan's nuclear disaster area rages on. The ten public hearings have become venues for public protests. A dozen or so counties and municipalities, blue and green alike, have chosen to save themselves. They have asserted their autonomy and passed regulations prohibiting the importation of food products from Japan's nuclear disaster area. The DPP forced four green camp county and municipal leaders to issue statements expressing their agreement with the central government. But forcing these leaders to change their tune, hardly means that people have changed their minds. The Tsai government will not have its way in this matter.
Full Text Below:
Controversy over the importation of food products from Japan's nuclear disaster area rages on. The ten public hearings have become venues for public protests. A dozen or so counties and municipalities, blue and green alike, have chosen to save themselves. They have asserted their autonomy and passed regulations prohibiting the importation of food products from Japan's nuclear disaster area. The DPP forced four green camp county and municipal leaders to issue statements expressing their agreement with the central government. But forcing these leaders to change their tune, hardly means that people have changed their minds. The Tsai government will not have its way in this matter.
The government's decision to allow the importation of food products from Japan's nuclear disaster area has provoked widespread protests for three reasons. First, there was insufficient administrative preparation. Neither the COA nor the Department of Health and Welfare presented convincing data and explanations. Second, its communications with the public were haphazard. Ten hearings in three days were purely pro forma gestures, utterly lacking in sincerity. Three, its decisions were made top-down, and issued in haste from the outside in. Government agencies had no idea how to respond. The result was bureaucratic “by the numbers” conduct that failed to address the issues.
Who was responsible for the hasty decision to allow the importation of food products from Japan's nuclear disaster area? Obviously it was not David Lee, Minister of Foreign Affairs. Nor was it Agricultural Commission Director Chen Chun-yen, who took offense and attempted to resign. No, it was high-level national security officials responsible for negotiations between Taipei and Tokyo, including of course President Tsai herself. Whether the lifting of the ban on food products was a quid pro quo for the sake of a “Soong Abe Meeting” is irrelevant. The government's decision-making was haphazard and rushed. It made huge concessions on food safety for the sake of diplomacy. It made these decisions behind closed doors, with no attempt to communicate with the public or seek its approval. How can the public possibly swallow them?
Premier Lin Chuan suggested two ways to deal with the protests at public hearings. First, increase the number of public hearings so that public opinions may be fully expressed, and second, investigate and prosecute "people wearing black" to protect the public and civil servants from threats of violence. These two approaches of course reaffirm the government's policy. But they will not resolve public doubts. The government's arguments for lifting the ban were riddled with holes, and constituted a grab bag approach. The test results conflated food products from nuclear disaster areas with those from non-nuclear disaster areas. Experts revealed these facts, making it difficult for the government to regain the public trust. Also, the government lacks the manpower to meet the rigorous challenge of food inspections. Claims to the contrary are exaggerated and cannot be trusted.
Compare the difficulties encountered during public hearings with yesterday's clash at the Legislative Yuan during labor law hearings. The problems were the same. The government can hardly blame “opposition party obstructionism” or "people wearing black". These were two distinct events. Both involved labor unions, social movements, and spontaneous grass roots dissent. The public and social organizations do not believe these public hearings were held in order to listen to what the people have to say. They realize that the government has already decided what to do, no matter what the people have to say. No matter what the people say, the government has no intention of changing what it will do.
The public realizes that the public hearings were merely bones thrown at them in order to placate them. They were pro forma gestures. This is evident from the fact that the Tsai government's major decisions have been top-down edicts. The "Policy Coordination Conferences" ostensibly enable the president to more effectively promote policy. Each week it finalizes decisions on long controversial matters. On the surface this appears “decisive”. But these party-government shindigs sideline essential discussion and communications. They ignore both general direction and specific details. Under the circumstances, the faster the president brings down the gavel, the sooner she prevents the Executive Yuan, Legislative Yuan, and even local governments from processing the information and arriving at their own conclusions. Think about it. If communication and coordination is lacking, even among government agencies, and policies emerged half-baked, how can people be expected to swallow them without question?
The reason blue and green county and municipal government heads have had the audacity to work together to halt the importation of food products from Japan's nuclear disaster area, is public opinion. It is why labor organizations blasted the Tsai government during Legislative Yuan labor law hearings. They know the Tsai government has sold them out. They know President Tsai has a soft spot in her heart for them. Moreover, the two issues clearly bear the imprimatur of Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP. A president who advocates a non-nuclear homeland has the chutzpah to demand the importation of food products from nuclear disaster areas. Labor organizations that support the DPP are now on the same page as the KMT. Under these circumstances, how can the government maintain the public trust?
As a further reminder, when President Tsai brings down the gavel during Policy Coordination Conference meetings, she should consider just how much the Executive Yuan, the Legislative Yuan, and the public are willing to swallow. Otherwise, when decisions are made at breakneck speed, one after the other, the government's recklessness may lead to unimaginable consequences.
中央決策失速暴衝，豈可逼人民硬吞
2016-11-17 聯合報
日本核災食品解禁議題延燒，除了十場公聽會變成民眾抗爭現場，十多個跨藍綠縣市也紛紛表態，要以修改自治條例的方式「自救」，擋住核災食品。儘管昨天民進黨強迫綠營四縣市長發表聲明，強調他們並未與中央不同調；但是，摀得住首長嘴巴，不意味改變得了民眾心意，蔡政府在此事恐怕無法一意孤行。
政府開放日本核災食品的決策，之所以會演成遍地烽火的景象，追根究柢，原因有三：一是事前的行政準備不足，農委會和衛福部均未提出具說服力的數據和說明；二是事後的社會溝通草率，三天十場臨時公聽會純屬應付了事，毫無誠意可言；三是決策由上而下、由外而內倉促下達，各部門因應不及，才會有「等因奉此」的潦草官僚應對；這尤其是關鍵因素。
若問：誰該為核災食品開放的草率決策負責？其答案，絕對不是外交部長李大維，當然更不會是自稱受辱而要辭官的農委會處長陳俊言；而是負責中日談判的國安高層和台日關係代表人物，當然也包括蔡總統本人。不論解禁日本核食換取「宋安會」的傳聞是否屬實，從整個決策操作的跳躍和倉促看，政府為外交在食安上作出這麼大的讓步，卻缺乏透明的程序及謙卑的溝通，人民如何吞得下去？
對於公聽會遇挫，林全內閣宣示的應變之道有二：一是增加公聽會場次，使民眾意見能充分表達；二是查辦「黑衣人」，防止民眾和公務員受到暴力威脅。這兩項作法，當然有助於政策的再說明，但就化解民眾的疑慮而言，卻未必有效。原因是，行政部門一開始提出來的解禁說明，不僅疏漏重重，還以「竹篙接菜刀」的手法，將核區及非核區食品的檢驗結果混為一談。這點，一經專家戳破，民眾的信任即難再重拾。何況，以現有政府的食品查驗人力，若要說足以勝任這樣嚴酷的挑戰，恐怕是誇大之詞，難獲信賴。
無獨有偶，以核災食品公聽會的難產，對照昨天立法院勞基法修法公聽會的火爆景象，其實有相同的脈絡可尋，殊難一舉歸咎「在野黨杯葛」或「黑衣人鬧場」。兩個截然不同的事件，分別有勞團、社運和民眾的自發參與，其主要原因，就是民眾和社運團體都不相信這些公聽會是為「傾聽民意」而開，而認為政府只是為了「搪塞民意」；無論民眾說什麼，政府都心意已決，不可能再調整作法。
民眾認為政府公聽會「虛應化」、「形式化」，並非無的放矢；這從近期蔡政府的重大決策都「由上而下」拍板交付，即可見一斑。尤其，在「執政決策協調會議」召開之後，總統為求各項政策的有效推動，每周均拍板定奪爭議多時的大政；表面看似果斷，但這樣黨政巨頭的大拜拜中，許多決策所必需的討論和溝通便會被省略，從而忽略掉重要的決策方向及執行細節。在這種情況下，總統拍板得越快，行政、立法部門乃至地方機構的消化能力就越發應接不暇。試想，如果連政府跨部門間的溝通協調都不順暢，不成熟的政策，又要叫民眾如何生吞活剝下去？
藍綠縣市首長之所以膽敢聯手圍堵日本核災食品，是自恃有各地廣大民意當靠山；勞團之所以在立法院猛烈衝撞勞基法修法，則是自認遭蔡政府「背叛」，且清楚蔡總統心中對他們有塊「柔軟」的部分。進一步看，兩個議題也都有清楚印有蔡英文及民進黨未信守的許諾：主張「非核家園」的總統竟開放疑慮未廓清的核災食品，支持勞團的民進黨在作法上跟國民黨並無二致，要如何維繫人民的信任？
更必須提醒的是，當蔡總統在決策協調會上不斷拍板裁奪大政，她恐須想想行政、立法部門的執行能力及人民的消化胃納。否則，當決策不斷超速、失速，暴衝的就是整個政府，可能帶來不堪設想的後果。
No comments:
Post a Comment