The pan-blue and the pan-green camps have recently been in heated discussion over the issue of fairness and justice in raising the subsidies for elderly farmers. In particular, opposition politicians question the sudden decision by the government to raise the monthly subsidy by NT$1,000 (US$33.09) instead of NT$316, as the Cabinet had originally proposed.
The proposal put forward by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and its pan-blue allies to raise eight other kinds of welfare allowances along with the elderly farmers’ subsidy met with public approval. Above and beyond party political considerations, how should the public view this issue?
In sociological terms, the farmers’ subsidy belongs to the category of social allowances and subsidies, meaning one doesn’t have to pay an insurance premium to receive the allowance as one would under a social insurance scheme. As is the case with other kinds of welfare subsidies for the disadvantaged, the subsidy for elderly farmers is paid for by the public.
The allowance for senior farmers has been adjusted four times since its inception. That being the case, it is reasonable to consider raising other social subsidies at the same time. That includes support for children and youth in mid-to-low income families, which has not been adjusted for 18 years; the allowance for elderly people with mid-to-low incomes, which has not been raised for 16 years; and the subsidy for physically and mentally handicapped people, which has remained unchanged for 17 years.
The categories of disadvantaged people eligible for welfare payments include elderly people, children and youth, students and Aborigines living in households with low or mid-to-low incomes, mentally and physically disabled people, and recipients of various kinds of payouts from the National Annuity program, adding up to nearly 2.18 million people altogether.
The cost of living has risen over the years, so the subsidies allocated to these people are no longer sufficient. The KMT wanted to establish a system for periodic adjustments of these welfare benefits, and accordingly proposed raising the subsidy for elderly farmers by NT$316, based on the 5.27 percent increase in the consumer price index (CPI) in the past four years since the allowance was last adjusted in 2007. However, the proposed figure provoked a backlash from legislators from predominantly farming constituencies.
If a 5.27 percent raise were applied across the board to other disadvantaged groups, it would fail to take into account the longstanding problem of too many different standards for benefit payments to various groups of needy people.
For example, the subsidy for children and youth from mid-to-low income households is about NT$1,400 to NT$1,800 per month. About 115,000 children and teenagers receive this subsidy. The problem is the standard for this allowance has not been adjusted for 18 years, during which time the CPI has gone up by 29.11 percent. If the allowance were adjusted in one go based on the CPI increase, it would be raised by NT$500 (actually 31.21 percent to get a round figure), so that payouts would be in the range of NT$1,900 to NT$2,300. If, on the other hand, the child and youth subsidy increase were to be calculated in accordance with the CPI increase of 5.27 percent over the past four years, then it would only go up by NT$84, thus failing to meet the purpose of really helping the disadvantaged.
Seen in this light, one can better understand how the KMT’s original proposal to raise the farmers’ subsidy by NT$316 (5.27 percent) came to be changed to NT$1,000 (16.7 percent). The change was made to achieve uniformity and fairness among various disadvantaged groups who have long been overlooked. It was motivated by a combination of seeking justice for the disadvantaged and dealing with political realities. Moreover, now that the basic standards for welfare allowances have been made uniform, and with the intention of adjusting them again in four years’ time in accordance with changes in the CPI, the prospects for making social benefit system more systematic are much better.
Although some people have accused the government and the KMT of pretending to be concerned for the disadvantaged, one has to concede that even if the original intention was insincere, the result has been a real improvement.
The adjustments that have been decided upon will provide an extra NT$12.3 billion in income for members of the eight categories of disadvantaged people eligible for welfare benefits, which is more than the additional NT$8.2 billion that elderly farmers will get. The overall orientation of the benefit adjustment plan goes beyond concerns for the well-being of elderly farmers and covers a broad range of welfare for disadvantaged people. The issue of elderly people’s allowances has drawn the public’s attention to the broader issue of caring for disadvantaged people living in isolated areas or on the lower margins of society, and that is something to be valued in Taiwan’s democratic development.
Democracy and freedom are among the most precious assets of the “Taiwan experience.” Now, with the two main political parties’ presidential candidates standing neck and neck in opinion polls, their campaign rivalry is becoming increasingly heated. Any policy proposal can easily become a battleground.
One positive effect of this can be to open up the policy black box for voters to see inside, subjecting policy proposals to the test of public opinion. This could be another feature of Taiwan’s election culture and democracy.
Once ballots have been cast, the feverish rivalry between parties that precedes an election will be over, and people will soon forget the war of words. When society gets back to normal, the momentary attention given by politicians to lonely retirees, women, children and teenagers struggling at the lower margins of society will at least have given these disadvantaged people a little help and breathing space.
Compassion should not be distorted and submerged in the heat of political rivalry, because it is another precious asset of Taiwanese society, and it is an inheritance that everyone in this country ardently wishes to pass on to the next generation.
Edward Wu is an associate professor of social welfare at National Chung Cheng 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