Attempts to deal with the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) ill-gotten assets, amassed from a wide range of sources since the end of World War II, have met with resistance from powerful politicians, and attempts to reform the civil servant pension scheme have encountered great resistance from retired military personnel, civil servants and public-school teachers.
As their interests would be directly affected by reform, it is no surprise that they are strongly opposed to it.
Opponents of pension reform are an interesting contrast to Sunflower movement protesters in 2014. One major difference is the personal and public interests of the groups.
While reform opponents are fighting for personal interests, the Sunflower protesters were fighting for the public interest.
Pension reform opponents launch vicious attacks on others to secure their interests. Ironically, they were the ones who would accuse people of creating unnecessary social costs.
Another difference between the pension reform opponents and the Sunflower movement is the generations they represent. While the former consists mostly of retired grandparents, the latter are mostly unmarried young people. The two groups differ greatly in age.
While pension reform opponents are already enjoying retired life, the student protesters were yet to begin careers. Their age, almost on opposite ends of the spectrum, makes for another stark contrast.
Despite their loud complaints, the pension reform opponents do not necessarily represent all retired public-sector employees. Other retired civil servants and military personnel have welcomed the reform.
A look at the ethnic composition of the opponents shows that many of them are so-called benshengren (本省人) — literally “people from this province” — who started working in government, the state bureaucracy and the military — three sectors that were filled by those who came from China with the KMT in 1949 — thus creating a new social class.
Meanwhile, a look at KMT lawmakers who have been trying to block the pension reform bills reveals how far some politicians will go just to secure their vested interests, which is a shame.
Public-sector employees have risen to privileged status because of their obedience to the KMT government during the Martial Law era. In addition to job stability, they enjoy special retirement benefits, including the world’s highest income replacement ratio, as a result of the government’s unwillingness to design a better pension system.
In the past, people would take to the streets to push for change, but pension reform opponents have done the same to resist change — and what they are willing to do to achieve their goal is shocking.
Nevertheless, the emergence of the new class consisting of people of different ethnic backgrounds shows that society has evolved.
Many Sunflower movement participants were second or third-generation waishengren (外省人) — literally “people from other provinces” — whose parents came from China with the KMT in 1949. Their effort to promote public interests and fight for a more just world has helped break the stereotypical view of waishengren. They represent a new generation of Taiwanese and are far more worthy of respect than reform opponents.
While those among the older generation who are opposed to pension reform live in the past, the younger Sunflower movement generation is the future.
As time goes on, everyone in Taiwan will become Taiwanese, regardless of when they moved here. Of course, there will always be reform and resistance, positives and negatives, just as there is light and shadow.
Lee Min-yung is a poet.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers