The notion that “the user pays” is something that many people take for granted. You might think that just sticking to that principle is enough to maintain fairness in society. Anyone who has the gall to go against it tends to be seen as a sponger who wants to eat and drink for free, and is despised by all.
This little phrase is a sort of condensed form of what a fair society is supposed to be, and it emits a glow of moral righteousness. No wonder people are always reciting it like a mantra.
In reality, “the user pays” only applies in particular situations, but it has been extended to be a universal law. It does not apply when the payee and the payer both know the rules of the game, and they form a consensus on that basis. In other words, the two sides enter into a contractual relationship. However, this contract can’t be applied willy-nilly to other people; it is by no means universally applicable.
Since this is a contractual relationship, the two sides need to decide between them how to define “user” and they have to work out how and how much the user will pay.
The reality in Taiwan today is that countless people are going hungry and shivering in the cold. At the same time, laws and regulations governing national health insurance and various kinds of subsidies keep changing. That being the case, the contractual relationship we are talking about, that “the user pays,” can’t be confined to a single formula. It can only be made to fit diverse people and situations if it is itself thoroughly diversified.
Some users are elderly, disabled, poor or sick. Such users should not be expected to pay the same rates as everyone else, or according to the same conditions. In fact they should sometimes not have to pay at all. Some people are denied the chance to be users. These outcasts should be brought back into the social contract.
There are also those who think of themselves as users and pay up accordingly, but the rates they pay are far from reasonable, and they are not properly informed. The path of human life is hard and split into many branches. The simple phrase “the user pays” cannot adequately provide for the interests of a diverse population, so we need to diversify this concept according to the situation.
At the same time, we should ask questions about the role of the user under the “user pays” principle and about the action of payment. For one thing, the social reality is that, in politics as well as in commerce, people are often asked to pay in the name of “the user pays,” but without knowing why they are paying, and sometimes without even realizing that they are paying at all. However, when ordinary people complain to politicians and businesses along the lines of “the user pays,” they don’t always get a satisfactory response.
Since we have been enlisted into this contractual relationship — willingly or otherwise — we have to pay careful attention to how the contract plays out for the parties involved.
A second reason for skepticism is on a rather more abstract level. We shouldn’t be so naive as to think that as long as we pay up the problem is solved, our conscience can be clear and social justice has been achieved. Nor should we think that the role of “user” is fixed and immutable or to be taken for granted. If we are not careful, we might slip out of the “user” category without knowing it, or we might find ourselves paying way over the odds just to be included among the users.
The popularity of the phrase “the user pays” is just another example of how moralistic and simplistic slogans can catch people’s attention, but that doesn’t mean that social justice is easy to achieve. The more boldly and confidently people pronounce the phrase, without giving it proper thought, the less consideration is given to the real meaning of social justice.
The way to social justice is not necessarily a clean-swept boulevard where efficiency rules. It may be twisting, confusing and even heretical. If we treat the notion that “the user pays” with due caution and mull it over, we will notice all the little side roads. Then we will see the reality, which is that many people are struggling to survive along those side ways, not sauntering along the straight and shady boulevard.
Chi Ta-wei is an assistant professor of Taiwanese literature at National Chengchi University.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
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.
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