The reformed pension systems for military personnel, civil servants and public-school teachers took effect on Sunday. President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) determination to plan and carry out reforms undoubtedly outshines her predecessor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) now that she has completed the pension cuts, to which some groups took offense.
Theoretically, her approval ratings should have increased significantly with the completion of this difficult task, but while showing slight growth, the results of several opinion polls have fallen short of expectations.
Past experience provides guidance for the future and two years of pushing for pension reform provides a crucial insight: Doing the right thing is not enough; it also has to be done the right way. This means that the social cost of reform should be as low as possible. If there is a high price to pay in the form of social division and internal discord, the public is likely to be unhappy.
If we could turn back time to when Tsai took office in 2016 and if the government and the Democratic Progressive Party could have rethought their push to reform pensions, it is unlikely that they would have followed the same path again.
With the exception of groups with vested interests, a majority of the public has long agreed about the need to address pensions. It was not only one of Tsai’s campaign pledges, but also a policy that the Ma administration wanted to implement, but abandoned.
To carry out such systemic reform, the first priority is to simplify the issue and do everything possible not to further complicate matters. The shorter the process, the better — and this also relates to efficiency. The reform target should be simple to reduce external intervention.
The government should therefore have mainly communicated with military personnel, civil servants and public-school teachers. There was no need to bring people in other sectors into the matter unless absolutely necessary.
To gain understanding from military personnel, civil servants and public-school teachers, two basic courses of action should have been taken.
First, the authorities in charge should have shown sincerity and been persuasive.
Tsai and Vice President Chen Chien-jen (陳建仁) have apologized to the affected retirees for cutting their pensions.
If they had adopted this attitude at the beginning of the reform push two years ago, asking that everyone share in the pain, the social atmosphere and result might have been very different.
Second, the administration should have prepared extensively.
To achieve substantial dialogue requires a carefully calculated plan to convince the stakeholders that the government is not cutting their pensions without reason. The government should have then adjusted the plan in accordance with their feedback, reached a compromise and finalized it.
The purpose of last year’s national conference on pension reform should have been to consolidate public consensus, not draw up administrative measures for the policy.
Tsai administration officials might think that this is nothing but “belated advice,” but if they do not engage in self-reflection, are they not doomed to repeat the same mistakes?
Thus, giving belated advice is absolutely necessary. Only an administrative team eager to learn and constantly evolve should be qualified to remain in power, because people will think it capable of acting faster and better the next time.
Tzou Jiing-wen is the editor-in-chief of the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times).
Translated by Eddy Chang
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with