On May 10, the Temporary Provi-sions for Elderly Welfare Subsidy (敬老福利生活津貼暫行條例) finally passed the third reading. While there were some twists and turns in the push for the bill, most lawmakers dared not block it for fear of alienating senior voters. They unanimously urged the government to provide the elderly with regular subsidies. It is estimated that about 440,000 senior citizens are qualified for a NT$3,000 monthly stipend starting June 1 -- retroactive to Jan. 1.
Even as government officials were thanking the legislature for their hard work, hundreds of physically and mentally disabled people from across the nation gathered outside the Legislative Yuan to protest the raising of the threshold on their subsidies, which left them economically insecure. It appears the government is haggling over every dollar for those truly in need while it is generously paying a total of NT$16 billion to the elderly aged 65 and above who are neither rich nor poor.
According to the provisions, those with high incomes, as well as those covered by other pensions, are clearly excluded from this program. The government believes that it is unfair for the roughly 440,000 senior citizens not to receive any subsidies from the nation. Hence, it wants to look after the weak by providing the money in the form of a subsidy.
This may sound reasonable, but the problem is: How does the government know that the 440,000 recipients are the weak? If they are not, is the program really social welfare?
The government's logic is contradictory. For example, Aboriginal lawmakers lowered the age threshold for Aboriginal recipients of subsidies to 55 because of their shorter life expectancy. Based on the same logic, the threshold for males should be lowered to 60, since their life expectancy is shorter than that for females. Moreover, the families of those who made contributions to the nation but passed away before 65 without receiving any government subsidies should also demand subsidies.
Taiwan became an aging society about 10 years ago, and the aging of its population will further accelerate in the next decade. Since the elderly cannot completely depend on their families for economic security, there has been a trend toward the nation taking over some of the responsibility. But which of the various elderly welfare programs is the most urgent?
By choosing to provide the monthly allowance, what good will it do our social welfare? For the rich elderly, providing them with the allowances can be described by the old Chinese saying "adding feet to a snake" (畫蛇添足). For the poor ones, such an allowance can be described by another old say-ing, "It's useless to put out a fire with a cup of water" (杯水車薪). The government must use its limited resources to optimum effect. Especially during an economic decline, the NT$16 billion for the elderly will crowd out other programs -- such as those for women and children, the disabled and the unemployed. The government has not even worked out where it is going to get the money for the elderly subsidy yet.
If someday the government is unable to pay the allowances, won't it deprive the elderly of their rights according to its logic?
Besides, the elderly pension is defined as a "transitional measure" before the national pension program is officially launched. Then perhaps we should ask: Has the national pension program been finalized? When will it be implemented? How can the elderly policy be called "transitional" if the government cannot answer these questions?
Most of the public may not have a clear understanding of social welfare, as the idea has started to gain currency in Taiwan only recently. If the government carefully examines its schemes first, the allowances provided may be unable to improve the lives of the elderly, while some of them may become more and more dependent on the subsidies. This phenomenon is common even in some European countries that have implemented social welfare programs for more than 100 years. It will certainly occur in Taiwan, where the government implements a "bargain-style" social-welfare policy.
Plus, as the subsidy program for the elderly will be implemented before the insurance-style national pension program -- will the public get confused about the nature of social welfare, hampering the future implementation of the national pension program? The government has to take this into account.
Perhaps the above problems are just my excessive worries. And perhaps we'll see on June 1 not only smiles on the faces of some 440,000 senior citizens but also on the thousands of lottery station operators -- as many predict that the elderly may spend the money on the lottery. In that case, the handicapped lottery station operators can benefit from the allow-ances. The government can also spend the lottery profits on social welfare. Such a chain effect on social welfare will benefit more people. Even the world's advanced welfare states will be amazed by such a phenomenon.
James Hsueh is a professor in the department of sociology at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS