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
In an article published in Newsweek on Monday last week, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged China to retake territories it lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. “If it is really for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t China take back Russia?” Lai asked, referring to territories lost in 1858 and 1860. The territories once made up the two flanks of northern Manchuria. Once ceded to Russia, they became part of the Russian far east. Claims since then have been made that China and Russia settled the disputes in the 1990s through the 2000s and that “China
Trips to the Kenting Peninsula in Pingtung County have dredged up a lot of public debate and furor, with many complaints about how expensive and unreasonable lodging is. Some people even call it a tourist “butchering ground.” Many local business owners stake claims to beach areas by setting up parasols and driving away people who do not rent them. The managing authority for the area — Kenting National Park — has long ignored the issue. Ultimately, this has affected the willingness of domestic travelers to go there, causing tourist numbers to plummet. In 2008, Taiwan opened the door to Chinese tourists and in
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
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) arrest is a significant development. He could have become president or vice president on a shared TPP-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) ticket and could have stood again in 2028. If he is found guilty, there would be little chance of that, but what of his party? What about the third force in Taiwanese politics? What does this mean for the disenfranchised young people who he attracted, and what does it mean for his ambitious and ideologically fickle right-hand man, TPP caucus leader Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌)? Ko and Huang have been appealing to that
RSS