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 their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS