On April 25, the Cabinet approved amendments to the retirement pension programs for military personnel, public school teachers and staff and private-sector workers. The amendments will soon be referred to the legislature for deliberation. In response to the proposed amendments, the nation’s eight major labor unions launched a demonstration on Wednesday, Workers’ Day, protesting against what they called “inappropriate reforms” to the labor pension program. Once again, the issue has grabbed everyone’s attention and become a bone of contention between political parties.
The purpose of pension reform is to relieve the government’s financial burden, improve the pension system and secure income for the retired. It should take reliance, protection, fairness and justice into consideration, and should not leave debt to future generations. A reform is a kind of revolution, and the process is almost certain to have a negative impact on some people. However, without it, every pension program would inevitably go bankrupt.
Many wealthy European nations with healthy social welfare systems are facing the problem of an aging population. The generation of “baby boomers” born after World War II has reached the age of retirement, so these nations’ expenditures on social welfare, such as public pensions and senior healthcare, have surged drastically. This has resulted in a huge financial burden, impacted on the construction of infrastructure and restrained economic growth. These nations are now cutting expenses on social welfare and implementing reforms of the retirement pension and social welfare systems.
Take Greece as an example. Due to massive national debt it has created, the generous retirement pensions and lifelong job guarantee of its civil servants is one of the causes of the government’s financial crisis. To lower its deficits, it plans to dismiss 15,000 government employees by the end of next year in exchange for a bailout of 2.8 billion euros (US$3.67 billion).
Data shows that Taiwan spends much more money on social security than many other countries. In the face of the falling birthrate, it is dealing with a rapidly aging society. Meanwhile, the government’s financial situation continues to deteriorate. If it does not make amendments in a timely manner, the continuation of current pension programs will eventually undermine its financial situation.
Although some of the amendments to the pension programs might be questionable, most of them can remedy the unreasonable systemic flaws, because they are based on the principle of expenditure reduction: Paying more, receiving less and taking care of the disadvantaged at the expense of the rich to balance revenues and expenditures.
What is worrying is that the government’s pension reform leans too heavily toward expenditure reduction. Even if it did raise pension insurance premiums, it is likely to go bankrupt in the end, because it offers no concrete method of increasing the economic efficiency of the pension funds or developing other financial resources.
Take the Public Service Pension Fund for example: The average yield over the past decade was just 2.42 percent, which is far below the 7 percent goal that was set when the fund was first established. This is surely one of the reasons why the fund has come under such financial pressure. A more detailed calculation shows that the effect of improving the yield by 1 percentage point would be equal to increasing the contribution rate by 5 percent, which would be quite an improvement.
In the short term, perhaps it might be helpful for the government to lift the funds’ investment ceiling for foreign targets.
Next, it should relax the restrictions on investment targets and be more flexible with is asset distribution and operation. It should also allow the funds to invest in infrastructure, real-estate investment trusts and real-estate to increase earnings.
In the long run, the government should consider incorporating fund management, so it can decide independently over its personnel and finances. In addition, the establishment of a Taiwanese sovereignty fund supported by the nation’s five major funds for military personnel, civil servants, public school teachers, workers and the general public deserves consideration.
For a long time, welfare services have been held ransom to politics, with the result that politicians have been making irresponsible promises, turning Taiwan into a country with low tax revenues and developed welfare services. Since our pension programs are nearing bankruptcy, Taiwan should learn from Greece.
The government must show its determination to reform the pension programs, while the public must take a rational approach to the problem. If pension reform remains mired in political calculations and bargaining over the amendments and we remain unable to push resolutely for reform, the only alternative left is for us to go down together.
Lee Wo-chiang is a professor in Tamkang University’s Department of Banking and Finance.
Translated by Eddy Chang
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS