Lawmakers approved pension reform bills for civil servants, public-school teachers and political appointees last week, with the controversial 18 percent interest rate applicable to portions of the pensions of retired civil servants and public-school teachers to be conditionally phased out over the next few years.
This naturally begs the question: Why do retired employees of state-owned or state-controlled banks still receive 13 percent interest? Should the government also take action on this issue?
The 13 percent savings rate has long raised concern over the financial burden placed on such banks, but what has particularly raised eyebrows is that there is an increase in perceived economic inequality and relative deprivation.
Minister of Finance Sheu Yu-jer (許虞哲) on Friday said the government would soon address the 13 percent preferential rate by gradually decreasing it to less than 6 percent over a six-year period for retirees of the Bank of Taiwan, the Land Bank of Taiwan, the Export-Import Bank of the Republic of China and the central bank.
Apart from these four state-owned institutions, several banks in which the government holds majority control also provide their retirees with the subsidized rate.
The preferential savings rate underwent two reforms under former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) administration, with employees hired after 2008 no longer entitled to such a rate.
This policy was implemented to address difficult circumstances at the time, but there is little justification for such a policy to continue.
It is expected that retirees and unions at state banks will present their demands soon and might launch protests if the government tries to change the preferential rate, similar to protests seen during the reform process for civil servants’ and teachers’ pensions over the past several months.
They are not the only retirees who want to retain these sorts of privileges — everyone who depends on interest payments wants to be treated the same way.
Everyone knows reform is painful, but necessary. The questions are how to proceed and who is willing to tackle it.
However, the inevitable question is: Why are the interest rates on regular savings accounts so low?
One explanation is due to low inflation expectations, which is attributable in part to the success of the central bank’s commitment to low and stable inflation.
However, as real interest rates — allowing for the change in the level of prices — have also fallen, it seems to reflect a slim chance for long-term economic growth, given the effects of such factors as aging and declining productivity.
The central bank has clearly tried to maintain a policy that supports economic growth. This poses the question of whether the low-rate situation is a new normal and if interest rates are to be determined by market fundamentals, or just by the government’s policies.
While the advantages of lower rates are encouraging businesses to borrow and consumers to buy, which to some extent supports economic recovery, the disadvantages have nowhere to hide.
Insurance companies are likely suffering less profitable investments and most savings account holders are earning lower interest, which in turn restricts their spending and overall economic activity.
Banks hold excessive savings, but have weak business investments, which leads to weaker productivity growth. Is a low interest-rate policy to boost the economy still justifiable?
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
RSS