Wed, May 22, 2002 page8

• Editorial: Time to say so long to the sages

  • • 
    • 
    • 

  As the Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) administration celebrates its second anniversary, changes in the line-up of presidential and national policy advisors both reflect the tensions within the government over policy direction and raise doubts about the need for such ritualistic appointments.

  The significance of the refusal of both Liu Hsia (劉俠), the founder of Eden Social Welfare Foundation (伊甸殘障福利基金會), or Chang Yung-fa (張榮發), the head of Evergreen Group (長榮集團), to accept re-appointment cannot be understated. Liu and Chang are political heavyweights who represent groups that couldn't be more diverse -- social-welfare and business. Both appear to be leaving their advisory posts under less than happy conditions. Liu says she did not feel she had served any real purpose as a national policy advisor. Chang was less blunt, simply saying that he was "too busy."

  Apparently, Chen's "new middle path" -- which some critics have described as an unrealistic attempt to make virtually everyone happy -- is not any easy path to follow or offer constructive advice about. Should anyone be surprised? A close look at the list of 150 national policy and presidential advisors reveals just exactly how many worlds apart they really are. Chen ought to know by now that the harder one tries to please everyone, the more likely he or she will end up displeasing everyone.

  Is there still a need for such advisors? The main purpose for these posts has been either to reward supporters or demonstrate political correctness. How many of advisors have really had the chance to advise the president anyway? Liu says she got to see the president just once a month -- at a large formal meeting during which all the advisors listen to a speech from the president and then politely clapped their hands.

  So why continue the pretense? Surely the money paid out to all these advisors who don't advise could be put to much better uses. The DPP used to criticize the KMT for having such a patronage system, so why not abolish it now? If the president needs policy opinions and consultations, task-oriented and non-permanent advisory panels could be put together instead.

  Chang had already made clear his differences with the government, particularly on the issue of "direct links." However, there is an another element in his decision to widen the distance between himself and the Chen administration, and that is the pressure Beijing has been putting on Taiwanese businesspeople who invest in China. Beijing has made it clear it will not tolerate Taiwanese who make their fortunes in China and yet support Taiwan independence at home. Beijing certainly isn't going to be friendly to the administration's supporters. Such an attitude creates serious problems for businesspeople investing in China, where the rule of law has is arbitrary. To protect their investments, business leaders, such as Formosa Group Chairman Wang Yung-ching (王永慶), must periodically make pro-China statements, such as the recent comment "we are both Chinese and Taiwanese."

  The Chen government has a multitude of problems to deal with. It has proven itself to be in sore need of good advice as well. However, an outmoded system of advisors that no one ever listens to anyway is not the way to deal with the complex problems facing the nation. Let's streamline the government a little more and drop the advisors.

  Comments will be moderated. Keep comments relevant to the article. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned. Final decision will be at the discretion of the Taipei Times.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    German warships to pass through Strait

  • 2

    Sino-Russian air patrol designed to counter US

  • 3

    Court orders Ko Wen-je’s detention

  • 4

    Silicon photonics alliance formed

  • 5

    Ko Wen-je release quashed