The unemployment rate remains at a high level. As victims of factory closure or after relocating to China, many workers have been left without a pension. Military personnel, civil servants, and government-employed teachers, on the other hand, are often better off after retirement as a result of generous pensions or savings, receiving preferential interest rates of 18 percent.
How much better off are these retired military personnel, civil servants and teachers? President Chen Shui-ban (陳水扁) said that if you look around the world, receiving 80 percent of income as a retirement payout is considered extremely high, but in Taiwan, the figure can often exceed 100 percent, to go as high as 120 percent.
This is clearly absurd. Although Chen's intention to introduce reform is admirable, results cannot be expected immediately. It will require across-the-board planning to devise a system that is long-lasting and fair.
Although military personnel, civil servants, and teachers are employed by the government, they are still ordinary workers. But ordinary workers in Taiwan enjoy none of their advantages. Clearly there is a double standard in effect. From the previous Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime to today's Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government, military personnel, civil servants, and teachers have been pampered, while farmers, fishermen and other workers cannot even hope for such treatment. It is not an exaggeration to say that they have been treated as second-class citizens.
The majority of workers have long been dissatisfied with the preferential treatment, monthly pension and 18 percent interest savings that is given to military personnel, civil servants and teachers. In recent years, the deterioration of the economy has meant that these benefits impose a heavy financial burden on the country. If the system is not thoroughly reformed, the government will not be able to bear this burden indefinitely.
Chen recently pointed out that the military personnel and public servants recruited after 1995 are no longer entitled to the preferential savings rate of 18 percent, adding that "there should be an opportunity to reform such a policy even though we cannot abolish it." In this case, the government should draw up a timetable and a comprehensive plan to get the reform off the ground rather than constantly putting it off.
Aside from this preferential interest rate, it is also about time the government reformed the monthly pension enjoyed by retired civil servants.
Nowadays, life expectancy is generally much longer than before as a result of advanced medical treatment and the growing awareness of healthy living. At present, many people who entered the public service in their early twenties are still in the prime of life, but are already eligible for retirement.
Consequently, it will be easy for these people to receive a pension for 20 or even 30 years. This will only lead the nation to face a heavy burden on the financial front and to waste precious human resources, for these people are still able to contribute much to the nation. Instead, the current system encourages former public servants to retire in their prime.
Unfortunately, most of the taxpayers in Taiwan are unable to enjoy this kind of retirement system. We believe that the problem is going to deteriorate into chaos as society gradually ages and the birth rate declines.
Most would not oppose the idea that the government should take care of retired military staff, public servants and public school teachers. However, if their retirement earnings exceed what they could earn when they were working, and also exceed most of the laborers, farmers and fishermen, the general public will become disgruntled if such a system continues to operate.
In principle, public servants are employed by the nation, which means they are also employed by the people. If their performance at work has bettered the life of people, it is reasonable to increase their pay or pensions. In Taiwan, no matter how the economy fares and no matter whether the general public is satisfied with the performance of civil servants, the salary and pensions of government workers simply continue to increase, and are never cut back.
Such a practice runs counter to the principles of a market economy. It is nice to see that these people are affluent; however, such a practice has to be based on a reasonable system.
Establishing a rational and fair system is now a matter of great urgency. The government not only has to conduct a comprehensive review of such a system regarding military personnel, public servants and teachers but also to take into account benefits for the laborers, farmers and fishermen.
In short, the government should not favor a specific group. In the past, civil servants received relatively low salaries, but this was compensated for by offering a favorable retirement system. Nowadays, the salary of the public servants has exceeded those of the private sector.
It is now time to make some adjustments to make the system fairer to all. This will help smooth out the divisions within society. It will be necessary for the government to give such policy reforms serious thought if it is to avoid setting up obstacles for the future.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti and Daniel Cheng
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers