Thanks to improved management techniques during the 1980s, many countries reformed their administrations. These reforms followed two main tracks: organizational reform and streamlining the bureaucracy.
In the UK, the number of civil servants was cut from 720,000 to 460,000 between 1980 and 1998, a decrease of almost 37 percent. In the US, the number of civil servants in the federal government was cut from 3.03 million in 1993 to 2.66 million by 1998. Even Japan, where even private enterprise offers lifetime employment, a group of eight cities cut their bureaucracies by 50,000 people between 1997 and 1999.
BOOSTING BUREAUCRACY
In Taiwan, however, administrative reform is constantly obstructed by bureaucrats. During the 1990s, we only managed to freeze the provincial government and the Organic Act of the Executive Yuan (行政院組織法) was only passed last year, delayed by 30 years.
Instead of streamlining bureaucracy, the government has created four new special municipalities, which means that their civil servants can get a pay raise and the cities can increase their bureaucracies by 22,000 people. There is already a large number of superfluous employees, making it increasingly difficult to establish a mechanism for reducing the number of civil servants.
That is also why the benefits offered to Taiwan’s civil servants are among the best in the world.
BALANCE
However, the principle of balancing job security and pay says that with good job security, pay does not have to be that high, and, conversely, with high pay, you don’t need the most advanced job security.
Taiwanese civil servants have among the most secure jobs in the world, with a monthly pension and 18 percent preferential bank interest, giving them an income replacement ratio — the percentage of the working income needed to maintain a desired standard of living in retirement — of almost 95 percent, the best in the world and far ahead of most normal countries.
In some countries, the income replacement ratio for civil servants is between 50 percent and 60 percent. In Japan, for example, it is 34 percent, almost one-third of Taiwan’s, and in Germany it is 40 percent, less than half of Taiwan’s.
OTHER EXAMPLES
In France it is 51 percent, in South Korea it is 67 percent, and in Austria, where it is very high, it is still less than 80 percent.
This kind of comparison makes it even clearer how extremely liberal the compensation is in Taiwan. Even for the most privileged Taiwanese workers the income replacement ratio is not more than 46 percent, far behind the military personnel, civil servants and teachers with their 18 percent interest rate.
According to the -Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, salaries in the private sector have not risen for several years, but the regular salary of a civil servant in 2006 was NT$62,167, compared with a regular salary for a blue collar or service industry worker of NT$36,126.
Both job guarantees and salaries are high for Taiwan’s civil servants. As a result, the treasury is in crisis as personnel expenditures every year make up one-quarter of the national budget, among the highest proportions in the world.
This situation is nothing if not unconscionable.
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS