While savings deposit rates currently hover at a low of 1.2 percent, amendments to the Civil Servant Retirement Act (公務人員退休法) that have just come into effect mean that retired junior public servants will be able to put their money into preferential savings accounts at an interest rate of 18 percent. That is 15 times higher than the interest rate offered to the general public. While it may be a cause for civil servants and teachers to rejoice — ordinary taxpayers may find it harder to smile given that they will be paying for the difference.
The issue of preferential interest rates for public servants is an old one, promoted by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government to secure the vote of public servants by promising them rosier retirement prospects. At the time, about 10 or 20 years ago, the general interest rate was around 10 percent, not such a far cry from the 18 percent preferential rate. Nowadays, however, most people would balk at the large gap between the two.
The generous preferential rate on retirement also means that some public servants were better off in retirement than when they were receiving a salary. That is why the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) amended the act to reduce the preferential terms, i.e. limiting public servants’ pensions to 80 percent of their previous salary.
After the KMT returned to government, it bundled the amendments to the act with the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) to give the preferential savings a legal basis, although the actual rate was left unspecified. It was the Ministry of Civil Service that decided on the 18 percent rate, thereby raising civil servants’ pensions to about 95 percent of their salary. In other words, a public servant receiving a salary of NT$100,000 may well get a pension of NT$95,000 when he or she retires. Pretty good considering the state of the economy.
The government has been trying to boost the economy since it took power, albeit focused mainly on China. Despite robust trade and economic growth, unemployment has been harder to tackle and the incomes of most people have stagnated. The recent economic upturn has mostly benefited businesses and investors, while the majority of workers and small and medium enterprises can only sit and watch others get wealthier and property prices soar. How would they feel seeing these retired public servants getting 15 times more interest on their savings? The government has to be aware that there is a problem. It is one of the reasons why the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) received more votes than the KMT in the recent special municipality elections. Where is all this public discontent coming from? It is the government’s pro-China, pro-big business, pro-civil servant policies that have made the general public feel left out.
Compare the situation with that in other countries. In the US, public workers’ pensions come out at around 80 percent of their salary, while in the UK, it is about 52 percent. The pension/salary situation is an improvement on the past, when pensions were often higher than salaries, but it remains excessive. At 2008 levels, 18 percent would mean a huge burden on already hard-pressed government finances, to the tune of NT$75.8 billion (US$2.6 billion).
A recent survey published by CommonWealth Magazine showed that 93 percent of Taiwanese are concerned about the widening wealth disparity in this country. The government’s policy bias will only deepen this inequality. Few would resent providing public servants who retired prior to 1995 the kind of lifestyle they deserve — but only if the government offers them a preferential rate that is more in line with prevailing interest rates.
For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s “century of humiliation” is the gift that keeps on giving. Beijing returns again and again to the theme of Western imperialism, oppression and exploitation to keep stoking the embers of grievance and resentment against the West, and especially the US. However, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that in 1949 announced it had “stood up” soon made clear what that would mean for Chinese and the world — and it was not an agenda that would engender pride among ordinary Chinese, or peace of mind in the international community. At home, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) launched
The restructuring of supply chains, particularly in the semiconductor industry, was an essential part of discussions last week between Taiwan and a US delegation led by US Undersecretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment Keith Krach. It took precedent over the highly anticipated subject of bilateral trade partnerships, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) founder Morris Chang’s (張忠謀) appearance on Friday at a dinner hosted by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for Krach was a subtle indicator of this. Chang was in photographs posted by Tsai on Facebook after the dinner, but no details about their discussions were disclosed. With
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his