Print

Mail

wiki links

An idea whose time has not yet arrived

It's a good thing when the government is willing to give money to the people to subsidize their livelihood. Logically speaking, it would seem that no one should object.

But if the government is so poor that it has to borrow money to get by and lacks funds even for normal expenditures, then it would be best if it didn't try to squeeze out the extra money needed to subsidize people.

The DPP administration has once again raised the idea of a NT$3,000 monthly subsidy for people aged 65 and over who are not receiving other government subsidies. It is planning to begin paying out the money to over 400,000 people next January.

Of course this is a good deed. But given the government's increasingly tight financial situation, stubbornly insisting on digging up NT$16 billion of taxpayers' hard-earned money and distributing it as subsidies which aren't absolutely necessary obviously contravenes the principle of doing good where it is most needed.

Taiwan's society is steadily aging. The population of people aged 65 and older is already approaching the 2 million mark. Every politician must confront the issue of the expanding numbers of the elderly, regardless of whether he or she is motivated by administrative concerns or trying to win votes. That is, he or she must do some good for the elderly.

But in doing good for the elderly, the government should consider two basic prerequisites. Do the financial resources exist? And how urgent is the matter? Doing good isn't wrong, but doing good where it isn't most needed is a mistake.

First, consider the financial resources or lack thereof. The Executive Yuan decided not to distribute subsidies to the elderly last year because it lacked the money. The government is even poorer now, with the general budget deficit for next year rising to NT$500 billion.

Second, consider the question of urgency. Although providing subsidies for the elderly was one of A-bian's (阿扁) campaign promises, the economy wasn't in such bad shape when he made the promise. Even if he broke his promise now, no one would accuse him of deliberately doing so.

Furthermore, comparing the needs of the economy, which is in dire straits, and 400,000-plus seniors, who are not impoverished, we see that subsidies for the elderly are obviously not a top priority.

Third, take a look at Japan. At the same time Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi presented his economic reform plan, he re-minded the elderly that belt-tightening would affect their welfare benefits and they would have to accept the pain brought on by the reforms like everyone else. Otherwise, it would be very difficult to achieve structural reform of the economy.

The DPP administration always considered subsidies for the elderly as a transitional policy, the long-term structural policy being the National Pension Program (老人年金). But the general budget for next year is NT$500 billion in the red, unemployment is rising month by month and economic recovery remains a distant prospect.

At a time when structural crises are staring us in the face, for the government to rashly push any transitional policies will only worsen and hasten those crises. The DPP administration couldn't be so dumb that it is unable to comprehend this bit of common sense.

Some NT$16 billion isn't small change. If used in an election campaign, it will have the effect of "buying" goodwill from 400,000-plus seniors. But if the result of the campaign is to finish off the economy, then how is the government's good deed different from an evil one?

Wang Chien-chuang is president of The Journalist magazine.

Translated by Ethan Harkness
This story has been viewed 2296 times.