Recently several politicians and political commentators have been criticizing the government's decision to abolish the 18 percent preferential interest rate scheme and reform the excessive pensions received by retired public servants, accusing the government of "aggravating tensions between different social and ethnic groups."
Such accusations are ridiculous, and show that the accusers have got the concepts of cause and effect confused. Since any nation's financial resources are limited, any unfair distribution of these resources is likely to cause civic and ethnic conflict.
Any attempts to point out problems with the existing system actually have nothing to do with "inciting conflict," but rather they are the first step towards solving the issue.
Legally, taking care of retired public servants by granting them the 18 percent preferential rate remains a government pledge. However, looking at it from a constitutional perspective, this pledge clearly runs counter to the principle enshrined in the Constitution that all citizens are equal.
When the policy was introduced all those years ago, it was directed at meeting the special needs of the civil service, to remedy such problems as the lower salary of public servants when compared with the remuneration of people working in the private sector.
Consequently, the government at the time felt it had to provide them with some kind of subsidy in order to maintain their equality with the rest of the population.
However, a policy originally aimed at pursuing social equality and security now personifies inequality. Such a situation is in clear violation of what the Constitution states regarding "equality." Thus, the government should no longer be obligated to uphold something that is unconstitutional.
But the question concerning reform of the 18 percent preferential interest rate scheme and excessive pension payments is just the tip of the iceberg.
Other than revoking the unreasonable benefits currently being enjoyed by an elite group, the government should also consider proposing a more rational system that is capable of taking care of retirees in an ageing society like Taiwan's.
With next month's local elections fast approaching, each political party is promising to do a lot more for its voters. Whether they are promising a direct allowance for farmers or a pension for senior citizens, they all cater to the needs of certain groups.
In the end, it is the government that has to fork out more money to take care of these people. Although the commitments made by political parties are all well-meaning and seem desirable, they lack comprehensive consideration for social welfare.
The Constitution guarantees basic human rights. These human rights should include the benefits of retirees of the nation. With all these rights clearly listed in the Constitution, the government should consider it a responsibility to pursue improved social welfare and fairer pension programs.
Thus, the call for reform of the 18 percent preferential interest rate and the pension program is just the first step toward fulfilling the rights stated in the Constitution. It has also sparked a country-wide debate about the retirement policies of the nation. For people who are able to cast ballots, their only hope remains that the government can bring about the introduction of a fairer retirement policy.
Cho Chun-ying is an associate professor of the Graduate Institute of Public Affairs Management at National Sun Yat-sen University. Chiang Ya-chi is a graduate student at the School of Law at the University of Leeds.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry