We have addressed the subject of the special treatment and welfare provisions for public servants in several editorials recently. Following objections to the restoration of the 18 percent preferential interest rate for retired military personnel, public servants and teachers, legislators quickly abolished the income-tax immunity military personnel and some categories of teachers had enjoyed for decades. However, the government also moved to pacify enraged ex-servicemen and teachers by introducing subsidies elsewhere, effectively canceling out any gains in tax revenue. Now the government is advocating salary increases for these same groups, but this only risks widening the divide between the way public servants and the rest of the work force are treated.
The majority of the nation’s economic indicators are looking quite encouraging at the moment. However, for regular men and women, still plagued by high unemployment rates and all-but--stagnant salaries, rumors of a recovery seem to be greatly exaggerated. These people aren’t going to be too happy if the government hikes salaries for servicemen and teachers, especially since many industries are still smarting from the global economic crisis two years ago.
They will be looking at these public servants, sitting pretty with their iron rice bowls, oblivious to the economic vicissitudes rocking the rest of the work force, with envy. If the salary adjustments proposed by the government do not stimulate salary increases elsewhere, distributing the benefits of the recovery to the other segments of the population, many people are going to start feeling left out.
This is not to say that the issue of public servants’ salaries should be ignored, as they haven’t seen any increase in many years. It’s just that the government should also consider how this will be perceived by the wider society and maybe rethink the timing.
Take the 18 percent preferential rate, for example. This was based on the principle of trust — making good on a promise the government made to these groups beforehand — which is fine, except that the rate is about 20 times higher than most people can expect from their own bank accounts. If the government goes ahead with the salary adjustment, it will be making life difficult for itself. It may well consider the issue to be separate from the economic fortunes of the rest of the workforce, but that doesn’t mean other people will share its assessment.
The problem is that many people are not feeling the benefit of the economic upturn. The indicators are good and employees in some companies and industries are looking forward to prodigious year-end bonuses, but most people are not seeing any improvements in their circumstances. Rosy economic indicators and news of other people’s fortune come as little consolation when one cannot see any concrete evidence of prosperity in one’s own circumstances.
The government might well be pressuring bosses to raise salaries, but this presents problems now that it has signed the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) with China. Increased local salaries mean higher production costs, which damages the competitiveness of Taiwanese exports. Then there is the increase in the exchange rate of the New Taiwan dollar which, coupled with increased salaries, will mean that domestic firms can kiss many orders from abroad goodbye. Either that, or they will have to outsource to other countries where the labor costs are lower, such as China or Southeast Asia. Raising salaries for workers will also mean that many others end up losing their jobs.
The government needs to be very careful when it starts announcing salary increases because of the possible consequences of such an action. By trying to please military personnel, public servants and teachers, it may well be losing the trust of the majority of the public.
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath