It's time to turn social welfare into a reality

Before the presidential election, four candidates out of five proposed social welfare policies. That would have appeared to indicate that social welfare would be a major campaign issue. Unfortunately, none of the candidates really put much emphasis on social welfare and, therefore, there was not enough lively debate on the issue.

In retrospect, it is easly to see that more elections will generate more issues and political views as well as more promises on social welfare -- which corresponds to the in-depth observations of foreign scholars that political democratization in East Asia is helpful in stimulating the expansion of welfare policies.

However, when it comes to making good on election promises, we have to wait to see if the winning party was truely sincere about its platform proposals.

Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) proposed a beautifully-written policy blueprint, which, however, was lacking in a complete and full package of social welfare policies.

Chen's proposed "333 projects" (333 專案) and "555 care" (555 安親照顧) are only part of the incoming government's "new welfare" scheme. Apparently the social welfare policies were left blank because the writer invited to draft the policies had disagreements with the campaign headquarters -- and so, they used "measures" to replace "strategies."

At present, Chen's government will soon be on track. In addition to the controversial Fourth Nuclear Power Plant and "anti-black-gold" politics, new visions for social welfare will inevitably draw more attention and demands in the near future.

Taiwan's social welfare has been "expanding," which is necessary when viewed from prevalent deficiencies and special favors given to government and education sector employees. Expansion has not resulted in fiscal deficits, nor will excessive welfare policies result in unwholesome social trends -- as people from political and business circles have said.

However, there should be appropriate limits to the idea of welfare "expansion." To set limits, we need to have clearer definitions of categories in social welfare as well as a consensus on such definitions, especially in the government's responsibility.

From the outset, the incoming government should have a once-and-for-all discussion and make a decision on the responsibilities of the government and the business sector, the obligations of the individual and the role to be played by the community and local welfare groups.

Only by doing so can social welfare stop being just an election issue or a bargaining chip in power struggles. Only then can we avoid seeing welfare downplayed and described as an extra burden for the government -- instead of being treated as an appropriate function. And of course, this will prevent excuses for delaying welfare spending, including those about such spending "crowding out other government budgets."

My vision of social welfare for the incoming government is not subsidies designed to please voters, but a blueprint with long-term goals and a package of workable welfare fiscal planning -- both are used to reach a consensus on implementing policies. The "new meaning" of new welfare lies here.

For the past 10 years, the outgoing KMT government has dedicated itself to expanding welfare policies and measures. But on the other hand, it has lacked a long-term vision for its policies.