On Dec. 19, the Legislative Yuan's Home and Nations Committee passed the first reading of a NT$16 billion budget, which will provide NT$3,000 monthly subsidies to the elderly in the next fiscal year. The issue has been hotly disputed, with the opposition and ruling parties arguing over whether the payouts are just a DPP ploy to attract votes or if there is actually a legal basis for them.
Since the subsidies have multiple implications, both the ruling and opposition camps, as well as the public should be very cautious about the issue.
The subsidies for the elderly comprise part of a social welfare system under which the rights and responsibilities of the beneficiaries do not match, as they do not have to pay premiums. Its only function is to provide protection for people with relatively low incomes.
Moreover, the subsidies will create a financial burden for the government while crowding out other priorities. To be honest, the subsidies have been promised by the government based on multiple considerations.
But if the government arbitrarily implements the policy solely for the sake of attracting votes, it will ignore -- or even destroy -- the possibility of building an all-around social welfare system.
I therefore urge all politicians to thoroughly evaluate the policy's feasibility and its possible impact and cost. We should put our focus on the following issues in the debate on whether the government should provide subsidies to the elderly.
If the subsidies were to be implemented it would not only require determination on the part of the government, but would also require a balance between government finances and domestic economic
development.
Furthermore, the issue requires consensus, as the government should pursue the establishment of a social welfare system for all citizens through the promotion of subsidies for the elderly.
For these reasons, we should have a broader vision when thinking about the elderly subsidy measures. Thus, the scope of the policy should be widened from merely a way to provide elderly subsidies to encompass the regulation of social welfare and the nation's economic and financial development as well.
Taking the above into account, the following questions seem to be key:
What is social welfare?
How do most people in Taiwan view social welfare?
What is the standard of living that we expect?
What price will we pay for the implementation of our social welfare system?
Do people fully understand that price and have we reached a consensus on this already?
What kind of social welfare do the people expect from the government?
What kind of social welfare can the government provide?
Can the promotion of a social welfare system convey an educational meaning? Or will it broaden the gap between different classes in society?
In addition, what will be the impact of the implementation of an overall social welfare system -- especially a twisted social welfare system and human temptations triggered by the system?
The ruling and opposition camps should be cautious when dealing with subsidies for Taiwan's elderly. They should not act impulsively or think only about their own interests when making the decision.
After all, if they are bent on having their own way and go ahead without considering the consequences, they will eventually find themselves in a lose-lose situation.
Wang Shung-ming is an associate professor of social welfare at Chinese Culture University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
US President Donald Trump on Monday gave his inauguration speech. Although mainly directed at US citizens, his words were subject to global scrutiny by leaders and others wanting to understand more about his intentions for his second term. The US has been Taiwan’s strongest ally since the end of World War II and Trump’s first term brought many welcome advances in Taiwan-US ties. Still, many Taiwanese are concerned about what Trump’s second term will mean for the nation, especially after comments he made concerning Taiwan’s national defense and semiconductor industry. During Monday’s address, Trump said that the US “will once again consider
RSS