The Mysterious Gap between President Ma's Authority and Ideals

The Mysterious Gap between President Ma's Authority and Ideals
United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 17, 2015

Executive Summary: President Ma Ying-jeou recently granted this paper an exclusive interview. He vowed to continue promoting his unfulfilled goals during the remainder of his term. He vowed never to relent. He vowed that he would not leave these problems to be addressed by his successor. The nine in one elections was a debacle. Ma has been bad-mouthed constantly ever since. Yet President Ma remains resolute. That is indeed admirable. Of course, it is easier said than done. President Ma must remember the reasons for his original defeat. He must change his manner of thinking and acting. Otherwise, his bold declarations will remain castles erected on sand, and all he vows will come to naught.


Full Text Below: 

President Ma Ying-jeou recently granted this paper an exclusive interview. He vowed to continue promoting his unfulfilled goals during the remainder of his term. He vowed never to relent. He vowed that he would not leave these problems to be addressed by his successor. The nine in one elections was a debacle. Ma has been bad-mouthed constantly ever since. Yet President Ma remains resolute. That is indeed admirable. Of course, it is easier said than done. President Ma must remember the reasons for his original defeat. He must change his manner of thinking and acting. Otherwise, his bold declarations will remain castles erected on sand, and all he vows will come to naught.

During the first three years of President Ma's second term he suffered one setback after another. These setbacks fall into three categories. One. Policy promotion failures. For example, the capital gains tax, the STA, the food safety crisis, the gasoline price and electricity rate hikes, nine year compulsory education, and the 4NPP issue, were all plagued by a haste to claim credit, poor communications, administrative ineptitude, and of course malicious obstructionism by the political opposition. Two. Political bungling led to political crises. For example, the Wang Jin-pyng influence peddling scandal and party membership controversy, the Chang Hsien-yao leaks scandal, the death of Hung Chung-chiu, and the Sunflower Student Movement. Ma misjudged the situation and responded inappropriately. Either that, or he failed to follow proper procedure and plunged himself in hot water. He even forfeited his bully pulpit. Three. Ma was a bad judge of character. For example, he promoted Lin Yi-shi and Lai Shu-ru despite their improper conduct. He retained academics and experts who lacked the courage of their convictions. He watched idly as Chang Hsien-yao and Wang Yu-chi committed fratricide. He relied too heavily on advisors who closely controlled the information he received. The debacle that followed was a long time coming.

When President Ma first took office, public support was sky high, and he enjoyed a supermajority in the legislature. But in swift order, both his authority and ideals were frittered away. Intense public resentment left him paralyzed, unable to move. The precise reason for this change has puzzled many.

The previously mentioned three crises were largely the result of Ma administration ineptitude. This indeptitude reflected poorly on his leadership, and was the result of President Ma's own unrealistic expectations. President Ma loved to hold forth on high ideals and high-minded reforms. But he ignored the need for public support. As a result, he not only failed, he also provoked a public backlash. As head of state he must use government authority and national resources to create stepping stones to his ideals. He must clear away the obstacles standing in his way. He must inspire public support, instead of resorting to hollow rhetoric, in the mistaken belief that his ideals can be realized overnight. President Ma insists he is not a lame duck. That is easy to say. Alas, he still does not seem to understand that the gap between reality and ideals cannot be bridged by  sheer bravado.

If someone were to say that Ma was the most naive head of state ever, few would disagree. Viewed positively, "naive" means he was pure of heart. Viewed negatively, the implications are highly derogatory. It means he brimmed over with good intentions, but had no idea how to realize them. It means he wielded great power, but had no idea how to use that power to benefit the people. It means he controlled the powerful machinery of state, but repeatedly dropped it on his own toes. True, he remained scrupulously incorruptible, but he never won the public's trust. President Ma occupied the highest political office in the land, yet had not idea how to govern. His contempt for politics, ironically mired him in politics. This was the fundamental reason both his authority and ideals came to naught.

Take the case of Chang Hsien-yao, the clearest example of President Ma's “all talk but no walk” phenomenon. President Ma granted us an interview. The woodpecker diligently searched out insects. Chang Hsien-yao was considered a second-tier official. Yet he provided information to outsiders, and eventually to the Mainland. This was forbidden by public administration ethics and the law. Yet the Taipei District Prosecutors Office failed to prosecute. It was all too incredible. President Ma apparently forgot that the person who appointed Chang Hsien-yao to both the MAC and the SEF was none other than himself. If Chang Hsien-yao's conduct was unacceptable, he could have dealt with the matter politically or removed him from his post. He could have instructed national security or internal affairs units to investigate. He should not have given him access to confidential information that could be leaked. But President Ma refused to remove his political appointee from office. Instead he presented the case to the Taipei District Prosecutors Office. The resulting criminal investigation backfired on him.

Consider the outcome. Was it not the same mistake he made with Wang Jin-pyng? The Chang case was the same as the Wang case. The Ma government had evidence of two violations. It mattered not whether the cases involved leaks or influence peddling.  They were actions that the public considered unacceptable. Unfortunately, the Ma government could not grasp the political subtleties. He reduced the entire affair to a matter of "criminal justice". In the end, social justice was blurred. Even the legitimacy of his own authority was undermined. President Ma was educated in the law. Perhaps he imagined that criminal justice would restore social justice. But as we all know, he has repeatedly blundered on the political front, and sacrificed his moral beliefs and social values.

Today's Taiwan is a values vacuum. The blue and green camps face each other, daggers drawn. The opposition party engages in defamation, and panders to the mob. These perhaps, are the main factors. But President Ma's political ineptitude and empty promises allowed his opponent to take advantage of him, time and again. They too, are to blame. President Ma says he intends to stand and fight another day. If so, he must first confront his shortcomings, his habits of all talk, no walk, and being quick to retreat.

馬總統的權力和理想落空之謎
2015-02-17 02:01:33 聯合報 社論

馬英九總統日前接受本報系專訪，

矢言仍將繼續推動任內種種未竟之志，絕不鬆懈，不會把問題留給下任。歷經九合一的慘敗，外界唱衰之聲不斷，馬總統仍能表現這股決志，誠屬難得。然而，說易行難，如果馬總統不深切記取其挫敗之教訓，設法改變思考及行事風格，再如何志大言大，恐如沙上築堡，終未必如願。

回顧馬總統第二屆任期近三年來的挫敗連連，大致可歸納為三種類型。第一，是政策推動的窒礙：例如證所稅、兩岸服貿協議、食安危機、油電價雙漲、九年國教和核四商轉等問題，其中有貪功躁進，有溝通不良，有行政荏弱，當然也有在野杯葛；第二，是政治處理不當演變成為政治危機，例如王金平關說及黨籍案、張顯耀洩密案、洪仲丘事件及太陽花學運等，都是在第一時間對形勢研斷失準而出手錯誤，或因程序失當而深陷泥淖，甚至失去話語權；第三，是用人失當：例如林益世、賴素如操守不良卻受拔擢，若干學者、專家缺乏膽識卻獲重用，張顯耀與王郁琦之同室操戈，乃至治國嚴重偏聽使進言管道封閉。這些冰凍三尺，均非一日之寒所致。

馬總統上任之初，擁有那麼高的民意支持，在國會也擁有絕對多數；但倏忽之間，權力與理想紛紛落空，且在強大的民怨下變得寸步難行，其間變化之謎，讓人好奇。

分析上述三類挫敗危機，有很大的因素是馬團隊「執政力」不足所致，而這反射到領導統御層次，則是馬總統個人的眼高手低。簡言之，馬總統喜歡高談理想、高談改革，卻忽略了台灣要走向他所描繪的願景，需要有各項社會條件和民意的支撐，否則不足以成事，且引致反彈。作為元首，他應該做的，是運用政府公權力及國家資源，為此一理想打造出各種可行的階梯，設法排除可能的障礙，同時喚起民眾的支持，而不是訴諸空談，以為可一步到位。遺憾的是，馬總統今天談起他「絕不跛腳」的心志，言下仍然十分輕鬆；問題在，他似乎仍然不理解，現實與理想的落差不能光靠著勇氣或宣示來填補。

事實上，如果有人說馬英九是歷任元首中是最「天真」的一位，應該不會有人反對。從正面看，「天真」是稱許他心思單純；但從反面看，這個詞也充滿貶意，包括：他空有滿腹善意卻不知如何實現，手中掌握莫大權力卻不知如何用來造福百姓，駕御著強大的國家機器卻屢屢使自己受傷重創，極力清廉自持卻獲取不了人民的信任。可以說，馬總統高坐在政治的頂峰，卻不知道如何駕御政治，甚至因為鄙視政治而困於政治，這是他權力與理想雙雙落空的問題根本所在。

以張顯耀案為例，最足以說明馬總統這種偏好「空談」卻力不從心的現象。馬總統接受本報系專訪時，再度以「啄木鳥抓蟲」為喻評論此事，認為張顯耀是次長層級的高官竟把資料提供給外人，最後流入對岸，這在行政倫理和公務法紀上都不可能容許；但北檢卻不起訴，太不可思議。馬總統似乎忘了，授予張顯耀海陸兩會雙重權柄的人，正是他自己。如果出事時覺得張顯耀的行為不可容忍，大可以採取政治處置直接調動或免除其職務，或移請國安或政風單位徹查，務必不能讓他再有接觸機密及洩密的機會。但馬總統捨手中人事任免的政治途徑不為，卻讓此案送進地檢署，而司法偵辦結果則是倒打自己一耙。

試想，這樣的結局，不正是大刀砍王金平卻遭反噬的同一覆轍？張案和王案一樣，馬政府都握有兩人違失的證據，不論是洩密或關說，也都是民眾覺得不可縱容之事。遺憾的是，馬政府無法把握政治處理之巧妙分際，卻讓整個事件被導向硬梆梆的「司法審判」，最後不僅社會正義模糊了面貌，連自己權力的正當性也隨之葬送。馬總統是習法出身，或許迷信司法能還原社會正義；殊不知，他在政治戰線一再躑躅，其實輸掉更多道德信念和社會價值。

環顧今天台灣的虛無氛圍，藍綠的對峙、在野黨的抹黑、人民的瞻顧，或都是主要因素。然而，馬總統政治手腕拙劣、徒託空言卻無法實踐，屢屢給對手可趁之機，同樣難辭其咎。馬總統要奮起再戰，請先面對自己「多空言、輕現實、易退縮」的缺點吧！