With the three-year floating postal savings interest rate dropping to 1.575 percent, the nation moved a step closer to zero interest rates.
Taiwan is about to witness another miracle — the lower rates will not have the slightest impact on 400,000 retired military personnel, civil servants and public school teachers who all enjoy an 18 percent preferential interest rate on their retirement funds.
This may be an old issue, but it is still certain to make the nation’s millions of laborers angry at being treated as second-class citizens. Maybe even the military personnel, civil servants and teachers will feel unease at being included in an unjust system.
There is of course a reason for the preferential interest rate. In the past, salaries for military personnel, civil servants and teachers were low and the economic environment at the time led the government to encourage saving to accumulate capital for industrial development.
Today, salaries of military personnel, civil servants and teachers have increased substantially, while the conditions for retirement are now vastly different, which means there is no longer a need for the government to care for them the same way it did in the past. Banks now also have sufficient capital. Given this situation, system reform based on a concern for the national finances, fairness and justice becomes necessary.
The government must of course take an all-encompassing view of this situation and make comprehensive adjustments that consider both fairness and equality, so that the gap between the welfare of civil servants and other members of the public does not become too wide.
We have no intention of criticizing retired government employees who receive the preferential rate. In the past, this scheme was necessary, but today, 25 years later, it remains unchanged and requires thorough reform.
Moreover, primary and secondary school teachers and military personnel don’t have to pay taxes. This practice has been discussed for years, both by the legislature and the general public, but no conclusion has been reached. As in the case of the 18 percent interest rate, the government does not want to offend civil servants. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has taken good care of them, and by comparison, the welfare of laborers, farmers, Aborigines and other disadvantaged groups has been neglected, with some having difficulty making ends meet.
It is precisely these groups that have to bear the brunt as the global economic slowdown hits Taiwan.
If President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) really cares about the general public, he should direct all efforts toward reform of these unreasonable and outdated systems so that government resources are spent on those who need it.
Over the past eight years, the government’s reform of welfare measures was repeatedly obstructed by the KMT’s legislative majority. Today, Ma and the KMT enjoy absolute power with more than two-thirds of all legislative seats and reform would be as easy as pie.
Statistics show that the government will spend almost NT$80 billion (US$2.4 billion) on the 18 percent preferential interest rate this year, or as much as the consumer voucher scheme. This shows the unreasonable distribution of public welfare. The government’s attentiveness to retired military personnel, civil servants and teachers must be adjusted with the times. It must not remain unchanged and give rise to irregularities, of which the 18 percent preferential interest rate is one.
Ma has full responsibility for doing this. He should at least consider the national finances, the changing international economic situation and social fairness, and show his determination to reform the system for the sake of the public.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with