First Rank Academics Must Be Part of the Tax Reform Commission

First Rank Academics Must Be Part of the Tax Reform Commission
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 25, 2008

The composition of the Executive Yuan Tax Reform Commission and its modus operandi will soon be announced. The China Times has published numerous editorials analyzing the importance of this committee and offering suggestions for its future direction. Unfortunately the candidate roster announced by the Executive Yuan falls far short of tax reform ideals. We hope the Executive Yuan will rethink its roster over the next few days. It must offer a presentable list of scholars. It must use discretion from very outset.

We had hoped that the Chairman of the third Tax Reform Commission would, in contrast to the first and second Tax Reform Commissions, be a respected scholar. But the Executive Yuan intends to appoint Vice Premier Paul Chiu to the position. Other candidates' names appeared in media reports. Their academic credentials fall short of expectations. Since May 20, the Ministry of Finance has been earnestly endeavoring to implement the Ma Siew administration's policy proposals. It is apparently concerned that if an academic is appointed Chairman of the Tax Reform Commission, its policy recommendations may differ significantly from the Ma Siew administration's Tax Policy White Paper. So they simply had the Vice Premier double as chairman. Not only that, , even the vice chairman will be someone who contributed to the Ma Siew administration's White Paper. The intention of this "belt and suspenders" approach is apparently to ensure the seamless integration of the commission's conclusions with the Ma Siew administration's policy proposals. Such chairman and vice chairman assignments may be painstaking, but they also limit the commission's latitude. Frankly, after such contortions, people no longer expect much of the Tax Reform Commission.

In terms of qualifications, including seniority and erudition, Chen Ting-an, Chairman of the second Tax Reform Commission is the most suitable candidate for Chairman of the Third Tax Reform Commision. If Vice Premier Chiu doubles as chairman, then Professor Chen is the best candidate for vice chairman. In terms of practical experience and tax management ideas, former Minister of Finance Lin Chuan and Hsu Chia-tung are both outstanding scholars. They are smart, farsighted, and well received by the community. Unfortunately several candidates were omitted from the list leaked by the media. These omissions strike one as the deliberate neglect of genius and the glorification of mediocrity. If the nominees for chairman and vice chairman leaked by the media are accurate, then outstanding scholars of the first rank with a wealth of experience have been deliberately excluded. Instead, the scholars involved in the development of the Ma Siew administration's three Tax Reform Commissions have been forced to play ball. In which case the outside world's perception will inevitably be negative.

Compared to the Executive Yuan Mainland Affairs Council, we see how niggardly the Ministry of Finance was in its plans for the Tax Reform Commission. President Ma knows the public on Taiwan has different views on cross-strait policy. The appointment of Taiwan Solidarity Union legislator Lai Hsing-yuan as Chairman of the Mainland Affairs Committee was an effort to seek consensus. Besides criticizing her political coloration, the outside world leveled all sorts of personal criticisms against Lai Hsing-yuan. Yet the Presidential Office and the Executive Yuan maintained a unified front. They adopted a policy of inclusiveness to create a diversified platform for cross-strait dialogue. President Ma was open in promoting cross-strait policy. Why can't the Executive Yuan and the Ministry of Finance be equally open in promoting tax reform policy? The Ma Siew administration felt no need to force the drafters of their cross-strait White Paper on the Mainland Affairs Council. So why should the Executive Yuan reject other, more suitable candidates? Why must the drafter of the Tax Policy White Paper be in charge of the Tax Reform Commission? Cross-strait policy is a sensitive issue, affecting as it does the public's feelings about unification vs. independence. Even so, the government was able to increase participation by recruiting TSU personnel. Tax policy involves cold economic analysis. It is nowhere as politically sensitive as cross-strait policy. So why the compulsion to wrap oneself in a cocoon?

We would like to remind the Ma Siew administration that under democratic pluralism, with its free flow of information, whenever one is confronted with different views on policy, it is best to incorporate them into the system. it is best to be completely open, and not attempt to manipulate the dialogue. If tax reform advocates in academia are unable to find channels to express their views, if their views are suppressed, they will use the Internet, newspapers, or blogs to disseminate their views. Therefore, even assuming the commission was intended to be a body in which "What I say, goes." the public on Taiwan cannot allow the commission to lay down the law. Attempts to neglect ability and glorify mediocrity will not create consensus. They will merely give people the mistaken impression the government wants to ram through its agenda. In which case its losses will exceed its gains.

According to media reports the composition of the commission will be determined by the Ministry of Finance. This apparently reflects Minister of Finance Lee Sush-der's notion that "The Tax Reform Commission's purpose is to realize the Ma Siew administration's policy proposals." We really have no desire to comment on the Ministry of Finance's myopia. We are however deeply concerned about the Tax Reform Commission's direction. We hope Vice Premier Chiu will rethink his position. If Professors Chen Ting-an, Lin Chuan, former Minister Shea Jia-dong and other talented individuals are excluded, then the National Security Fund will probably be forced to prop up the market the very first day the Tax Reform Commission begins operation. Only a first rank scholar can come up with first rate policy prescriptions. Absent first rank scholars, one will only end up with third rate policy prescriptions. Chairman Chiu of the Tax Reform Commission has a long and difficult journey ahead of him. Even if we have to get down on our knees and beg, the Tax Reform Commission must invite at least a few first rank scholars.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2008.06.25
務必積極廣邀一軍學者參與賦改會
中時社論

　行政院賦稅改革委員會的組成與運作，即將於近日公布。本報曾經多次以社論剖析這個委員會的重要性，並建議其未來之規畫方向。但遺憾的是，以目前行政院所公布的成員與組織來看，與稅改理想實有相當距離。我們希望行政院再做構思，也許在這幾天能做些調整，務必要擺出一列像樣的學者陣容，要慎於始。

　我們原本希望，第三次賦改會能比照第一或第二次賦改架構，由大學者出馬擔任主任委員；但是行政院目前的規畫，卻是由邱正雄副院長擔任主委，而即使是媒體報導的其他擔綱成員，論資歷與聲望也與大學者有相當距離，好生令人失望。財政部從五二○開始，就一心一意想要貫徹馬蕭政見。他們似乎擔心，由學者擔任賦改會主任委員，將來的結論也許會與馬蕭的租稅政策白皮書有差距，於是乾脆由副院長兼任主委，以便欽掌局面。不僅如此，連副主任委員，都規畫由馬蕭白皮書的撰稿者充任，幾乎是以「雙重保險」的方式，意圖掌握賦改會研究結論與馬蕭政見之銜接。這樣的主委、副主委安排儘管是煞費苦心，卻也完全侷限了賦改會的思路空間。經此折騰，坦白說民間對該會已經沒有太多期望了。

　就資望而言，二次賦改會主委陳聽安，依其輩分、學養，當然是最適合的第三次賦改會主委。即使邱副院長要自兼主委，那麼陳教授也是最佳副主委人選。就實務經驗與租稅理念而言，前財長林全與許嘉棟都是極為優秀的學者，其聰明、宏觀、視野都廣受社會肯定。但遺憾的是，目前媒體揭露的人選中，這幾位先進都被排除在委員名單外，似乎刻意要毀棄黃鐘，以便讓次佳的瓦釜將來能發震天價響的雷聲。如果媒體披露的主委、副主委等名單無誤，刻意將前列學識經驗豐富優秀的學者排除在外，反而是參與馬蕭財稅政見研擬的學者充斥在三次賦改會中，則表示該會成立伊始就自穿小鞋，那麼外界的觀感，就難免負面了。

　與行政院陸委會相比，我們就更能看出財政部規畫賦改會的小器。馬總統知道台灣民間對兩岸政策的態度有歧異，就刻意安排台聯黨的賴幸媛做陸委會主委，以「擴大民間共識基礎」。除了色彩之外，儘管外界對賴幸媛個人有種種批評，府院都能存同去異，以最大的包容去促成兩岸政策的多元對話平台。如果馬總統能夠這樣開放地思考、推動兩岸政策，為什麼行政院與財政部卻無法比照構思賦稅改革政策？如果馬蕭沒有將其兩岸白皮書的起草人強推為陸委會主委，為什麼行政院就要踢開其他更適合的人選，一定要白皮書的撰稿人去賦改會擔綱？兩岸政策涉及人民的統獨情感，處理起來雖然極為敏感，但即使如此，政府都能擴大參與，找台聯人士加入。租稅政策只是冷冰冰的經濟分析，政治敏感度遠不及兩岸，為什麼卻一定要作繭自縛呢？

　我們要提醒的是：在當前這樣一個民主多元、資訊流通的時代，面對不同的政策見解，最好的辦法就是將他們引入體制內，做全然開放的、不做操縱的討論。如果學界某些稅改主張在賦改會尋不著抒發管道，或是遭到壓抑，他們就會藉網路、報章、部落格四處發揮。因此，即使賦改會設計成一言堂，整個台灣的輿論也不可能容許賦改會自為非是。到頭來，徒然使賦改會的瓦釜意見與民間學者的黃鐘之音相牴觸，不但達不成凝聚共識的效果，反而予人政府欲強渡關山的誤解，那就很得不償失了。

　媒體報導，目前賦改會的組成應該是財政部所安排規畫，而整體而言，也似乎反映出李述德部長「賦改會是為落實馬蕭政見」的中心思想。我們對於財政部的格局視野實在不想再做評論，但是對於賦改會的未來走向，卻感到異常地憂心。希望邱副院長能夠在最後關頭再冷靜思考；像陳聽安教授、林全與許嘉棟前部長等社會菁英若都排除在外，那麼賦改會成立第一天，恐怕國安基金就得進場護盤了。無論如何，唯有一軍學者才能研議出一流的結論；排除一軍的參與就只會得出三流的結論。賦改會邱主委其實任重道遠；就算磕頭，也要把幾位一流學者請進賦改會。