The draft act on reforming the pension system for civil servants was on Wednesday sent to the Legislative Yuan’s Judiciary and Organic Laws and Statutes Committee for review.
However, before the review meeting, a brawl broke out outside the legislature as opponents of the bill tried to stop lawmakers from entering the legislative building.
Minister Without Portfolio and National Pension Reform Commission Deputy Convener Lin Wan-i (林萬億) later that day in a radio interview said that the pension reform bill would probably not pass the required three readings before the end of the legislative session, unless the legislature holds extra sessions.
How is it possible that such a small group of opponents can stall the government’s reform plan for a whole year?
It is only a matter of time before pension reform is completed, thanks to the broad consensus on the issue and the ruling party’s legislative majority.
While the bill is expected to bring long-term benefits, such as ensuring the sustainability of the pension funds and improving the nation’s financial well-being, if handled wisely, it could also bring the immediate benefit of increased public support for the government.
Whether the government can reap both the long and short-term benefits depends on how well it handles the reform.
The public needs the government to carry out the reform in an effective and efficient manner, rather than causing more problems than there already are — and that is how it will judge the government.
The most fundamental issue in civil servant pension reform is the unreasonably high income replacement ratio. Retired military personnel, public servants and public-school teachers must have understood a long time ago that the pension system needs to be reformed, as the experience of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nations suggests.
The 18 percent preferential interest rate, another key issue, is a more delicate matter. The policy of offering public-sector retirees a higher interest rate on time deposits was announced in 1960, and the 18 percent interest rate was introduced in 1983.
In 2010, the government legalized the preferential interest rate despite lack of public support.
These policies are a legacy of the authoritarian era, as the government never consulted the public about such policies. That government has already stepped down and there is a new government in place, so there is no need to discuss the issue further.
Since pension reform is clearly necessary, what remains to be discussed is how to ensure the best and most immediate results. This should be one of President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) strong points, as it was part of her campaign promises and one of the reasons for the support she garnered.
To ensure the best outcome in pension reform, the government should prepare a plan before asking for opinions.
To ensure speedy reform, it must be willing to accept differing opinions, improve its plan and integrate other views. It must not be caught up in formality by perpetuating discussions and failing to come to a decision, or think that it can calm the opponents and change their minds by extending the process.
The Tsai administration took its time to send the pension reform bill to the Legislative Yuan.
However, this did not prevent violent protest from breaking out on Wednesday.
Following the protest, legislators across party lines decided to hold two public hearings next week before conducting an item-by-item review of the bill.
After going through so much internal division and exacting such a high social cost, the government has failed to calm the opponents of pension reform or convince the opposition parties to be more cooperative. Instead, it has made matters worse.
The national congress on pension reform, which was intended to help build a consensus, has failed to build legislative support for the government’s pension reform proposal. To make matters worse, the committee has made comments that avoided the issues at stake.
It seems that the Tsai administration has not learned its lesson as it apparently forgot that it is the government’s responsibility to address protests and resolve differences.
The difference between running an election campaign and governing a nation is that the former means attributing problems to one’s opponents, while the latter means having to take responsibility for the problems and solving them.
Failed administrations share the habit of assigning blame on others, believing that it will help their re-election bids. While in office, they did the exact same things as they did when running for office and failed to do their job. By failing to understand that they must take immediate action to solve problems, they ended up accomplishing nothing.
That is why, despite several transitions of power since 1996, Taiwan has made little progress and even deteriorated in certain aspects.
In a speech on Wednesday, Tsai said that irrational behavior will not gain public support and that reform opponents’ attempts to create social conflict will not stop the government from pushing for reform.
While Tsai’s remarks make sense, they are not that different from standard election campaign rhetoric. Taiwanese who voted for the Democratic Progressive Party wanted a new political beginning; they did not want pension reform to become the model for all other reforms.
To do things effectively and efficiently, the government must have a plan, not just vague ideas. It must not fear offending people, or try to please everyone.
This all points to the same conclusion: Stop thinking about the next election. That is the only way to win the next election.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs