Ma administration
bumbling along
By Jerome Keating
The Economist article on ¡§Ma the bumbler¡¨ certainly got plenty of reactions in
Taiwan and provided Taiwanese with a new buzzword. Intentional or not, there was
more.
The ironic result of this article has been that it did more than suggest
President Ma Ying-jeou (°¨^¤E) is a bumbler: It has exposed and pointed out what
really lay at the heart of the current ineptness and incompetency of the Ma
administration.
It is not so much what the article suggested, namely, ¡§If it looks like a
bumbler, talks like a bumbler and acts like a bumbler, then it is a bumbler.¡¨
Nor was it that, ¡§A bumbler by any other name is still a bumbler.¡¨ No, what the
article revealed was something worse and more deeply rooted.
The article pointed out how the Ma administration continues to operate under
placating and image-saving focal constraints. These constraints remain basic
elements of its core philosophy, and unfortunately for Taiwan, that philosophy
is the antithesis of progress.
At the start of his administration five years ago, Ma gave a seemingly wise yet
placating promise. Indicating that his general aim would be to please all sides,
Ma gave the first of his three noes. With this benchmark decision, his
administration stated it would henceforth guide itself by being defined by
negatives.
Thus, it would not seek unification, nor would it seek independence and it would
also not use military force to attack the People¡¦s Republic of China (PRC).
While the third no was probably put in just for balance, it proved to be
humorous and even ludicrous in its attempt to be serious. One finds it hard to
imagine that the leaders of the far superior PRC military forces would be
quaking in their boots and saying to themselves, ¡§Thank heavens, Ma has declared
that he will not attack us.¡¨
For the simple minded as well as those happy to see Ma reveal such a placating
nature so openly, these first three ¡§noes¡¨ were welcome words.
In effect, Ma was going to please everyone; certainly he could be counted on as
someone who would not rock the boat, regardless of any sacrifice for Taiwan¡¦s
progress. Instead he would maintain a facade of stability in the realistic,
ever-changing world of the imaginary status quo. Ma would do this by ¡§doing
nothing.¡¨ Even Taiwanese were buffaloed into believing this would bring them
progress.
Of course, Ma¡¦s words did not advance the nation. Nevertheless, now one year
into his second term and with his approval rating at a dismal all time low, we
still find him relying on placating negative mantras.
In working with his strongest ally, the US, Ma, instead of stating how he will
build the strength of Taiwan¡¦s half of the alliance, he has resorted to more
negatives. In effect, Ma promises that his subordinates will, like him, present
the image of ¡§good little boys.¡¨
In dealing with the US, there will be ¡§no surprises, no time lags and no
errors.¡¨ Those are pleasant but impossible words in the demanding give and take
of diplomacy and they certainly do not spell progress by a man who should have
Taiwan¡¦s interests and not his image as its top priority. Nonetheless they again
show that Ma¡¦s administration has chosen to define itself by negatives.
The wisdom of defining any form of leadership by negatives or even defining the
role of any government by negatives can be open to debate.
For Taiwan it is far more important to examine the effect this has on the
selection of personnel. People that serve in the Ma administration do not
necessarily have to have the best accomplishments in their particular area or
field. Instead they will be known by their ability to avoid mistakes in ¡§doing
nothing.¡¨ In addition to this, of course, will be their loyalty to Ma and his
image.
Thus, when the article in the Economist came out, the first evident thing that
Ma¡¦s people did was to focus on image control.
All sorts of excuses came out. It was the magazine¡¦s fault for not putting
¡§bumbler¡¨ in quotation marks; the media were at fault for misrepresentation and
we even had the explanation that bumbler can translate into Mandarin in more
ways than one.
No one focused on the o.bvious: that progress was lacking. No, this time image
control proved more difficult than Ma¡¦s yes-men anticipated.
Whether Ma is a bumbler is open to question, but more important is the fact that
given the method of how his subordinates are chosen, there is a good chance that
they will be bumblers in policy development and performance. This is something
that even Ma¡¦s own party, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) admits to.
With ample talent in the party, they question why Ma sets such loyalty as well
as ¡§do nothing¡¨ constraints on those beneath him, especially when he must
realize that sooner or later platitudes and promises will not do the trick.
At this point some will object that Ma has made positive, albeit pie-in-the-sky,
projections and efforts such as 6-3-3 or the Golden Decade, but as for defining
his administration these do not seem to be a place where any want to go.
There is one final factor that becomes clear. Surrounded by image-protecting
subordinates who can define performance by ¡§doing nothing,¡¨ neither Ma nor his
administration know how to work democratically with others, including the
Democratic Progressive Party.
Ma lives in a world where he expects compliance and belief in platitudes and
promises. If there is failure, his subordinates must fall on their swords.
All well and good for Ma¡¦s image, but as for progress on the national level and
a resolution of the many problems facing this fledgling democracy, this is not
enough.
So what can Taiwan expect for the next three years? If it continues to define
itself by negatives, and the protection of Ma¡¦s image, the future is not that
bright.
At best it will bumble along; at worst, those that benefit most from Ma¡¦s
placating negativity will seize their opportunity
Jerome Keating is a commentator in Taipei.
|