[Contribution] Poor preparations deepen crises

The "great crisis" involving the separation of the roles of doctors and pharmacists, and the "small crisis" over financial reform have passed into history. There have been criticisms of collective egoism, the government`s lack of coordination, loss of credibility and the shortage of professionals.

But leaving behind are vague rhetoric, like the "mountains are high, the sky is blue, and the rivers are flowing.¡± But there were no viable contents and methods of coordination or mediation of those complications, as a means of prevent such crises.

Ahead of us in the latter half of the year are myriad problems, such as the full-fledged implementation of the separation of doctors` prescriptions and pharmacists` drug dispensing, the across-the-board enforcement of a second round of financial sector reform, the positive implementation of the structural reform of the public sector, and the standoff between labor and management over the dispute involving the unionists demand for cutting work hours.

In order to smooth over conflicts among the interest groups and implement prescribed plans without fail, what is needed is thorough preparations from the phase of planning. In other words, a thorough and comprehensive "scenario" must be mapped out with regard to mutual accommodation between the government policy goal and state philosophy, contents and direction of the policies, strategy for their implementation, and so forth.

The government should not repeat such a folly as was manifested in its policy to spin off five banks merely with the presentation of a unilateral timetable.

Second, policy makers need to apply themselves to adapting to the new paradigm to usher in the 21st century. The government authorities are required to have concern, understanding and affection toward the people subject to the policy measures in the course of coordinating and implementing them.

Truly, this is the foundation of confidence, and only when mutual confidence is built, there will follow dialogue, compromise persuasion and concessions. If the welfare policy authorities are negligent of the subjects of their policy measures and the labor authorities are shunning the leaders of trade unions, their efforts will be rendered naught, no matter how they strive.

Third, the authorities should be provided with the capability to discern between their "inner will" and "ostensible" insistence. This is the key for the authorities to open dialogue with them. If their seemingly hardline or radical insistence is laid bare, they determine the true intentions of a majority of them or the candid voice of conscience of the minority. At this stage, the negotiations are half successful.

Fourth, there must follow strenuous effort to adjust the quantity and quality of the perceived inner will and then to conform them with reality and objectives. The effort means dialogue and discussion, and persuasion and pressure. If this is properly done, there are no fears of a great crisis, and if any, there will be only small one.

Last, though much belated, there is an urgent need to prepare for complications. This is to say that the government should put into action the aforementioned assertion swiftly and steadfastly. Of course, it takes time.

So, what shall we do at this juncture? It reminds us of the statement that for now we may be right, but as time passes, we all will be dead. This is a proper warning from John Keynes, who stood against the laissez-faire scholars who clung to "invisible hands."

Surely, this serves us a timely warning against the authorities` easygoing attitude and our reality.