Some fireworks can be expected tomorrow inside and outside the national affairs conference on pension reform, but a lasting solution to the problems facing the nation’s 13 pension funds is not. The pension plans are in need of too much repair for that.
However, the potential for crucial change is there.
It has been clear for years that substantive overhauls were needed to reflect the changes in the nation’s finances and demographics, including a low birth rate and rapidly graying society, as well as the need to balance the retirement age and pension plans between the public and private sectors.
Alarms have repeatedly been raised about the imminent bankruptcy of one or more of the pension funds, with patchwork bandages applied to keep them limping along, while efforts to abolish the political footballs that are the 18 percent preferential savings rate for retired public-sector employees and the vast gap between public/private sector retirement rules and plans have been demonized as class, ethnic or political warfare.
All too often political considerations trumped economics and common sense.
A piecemeal repair approach is no longer feasible, yet it does not bode well that a meeting on such a crucial topic was downsized from the original two-day plan. Nor is it a good sign that the government’s draft pension reform plan was released just three days before the conference, even though Vice President Chen Chien-jen (陳建仁) stressed that the plan was drafted after 20 committee meetings, four regional forums and efforts to solicit public opinion.
However, the reluctance of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), the New Party and the Taiwan Solidarity Union to send representatives to tomorrow’s conference will not help efforts, but simply reduce the session to politics as usual.
Any reforms are bound to be painful because current pension systems are both badly outdated and poorly funded, but everyone is going to have to work together to achieve the needed changes, not just try to protect their vested interests. Everyone will have to make concessions.
For example, complaints about the impact that raising the retirement age will have on middle-aged workers who might have been planning to retire before turning 65 should be tempered by the knowledge that lower retirement ages were set when life expectancy was much lower and that none of the pension plans will be able to fund decades of retirement for them unless substantive changes are made.
Young people who fear that job or promotion opportunities could be affected by more older people remaining in the labor force should consider how these older workers will continue to pay into pension systems, reducing the burden on the young to fund plans that now appear unlikely to survive until they will be able to use them.
Complaints by retired civil servants about cuts to their benefits, especially the 18 percent preferential interest rate, should be tempered with recognition that they have profited for years from a KMT-rigged system that has been a massive drain on the national budget for decades and is crippling the Treasury.
That 18 percent interest rate was introduced in 1960 as an inducement for people to work for the government, with the government making up the gap between the average interest rate offered by banks and the 18 percent rate. The KMT long protected it as a vote-winning tactic.
The government’s plan for eliminating that 18 percent rate guarantee — through two staged options — is probably the best idea that has been presented in a long time, and the most feasible.
Even though the need for action on the pension systems is crucial, it must be well thought out action. Otherwise, Taiwan will remain trapped in an endless cycle of talk and shoddy patchwork.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS