After being admonished in public by Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), former Xinyi District (信義) police chief Lee Te-wei (李德威) left his position and, together with his wife, began working for the Hon Hai Group, earning a great deal more than they did as public servants. Media reports estimate that Lee and his wife, aged 54 and 55 respectively when they retired, are also entitled to about NT$90,000 in monthly pension on top of their income.
This case highlights three major problems with the pension system for public servants — that is, military personnel, public school teachers and civil servants: first, the excessive size of the pension; second, retirees can still receive pension payments even if they secure other employment; and third, the inordinately high pension replacement rate.
One of the main reasons behind Greece’s debt crisis is the nation’s early retirement age and generous pension system, according to an analysis by the EU.
Eurostat figures from 2012 showed that the average age of people receiving their pension for the first time in Greece is 57.8, compared with 63.6 in Sweden and 61.1 in Germany. In the US, even if you fulfill the retirement criteria, you can only start collecting your pension from the age of 62. In this regard, Taiwan clearly outdoes Greece.
In order to maintain growth over the long term, Germany has increased the age for which one becomes eligible for a standard pension to 65 years and four months, while in the US, it is 65 years and six months. However, the two nations plan to increase the age to 67 this year. If Lee and his wife lived in the US or Germany, or even Greece, they would not have started receiving their pensions.
Most of the pension systems in advanced nations factor in income from post-retirement jobs. For example, US law stipulates that US$1 be deducted from a retiree’s pension for every US$2 they earn over US$15,720.
However, in Taiwan, retired public servants can work and earn an income without their pensions being affected. One would be hard pushed to find a more favorable system anywhere else in the world — especially with a high replacement rate and an 18 percent preferential interest rate on savings.
On June 18, the Council of Grand Justices issued Interpretation No. 730 to deal with calculating second pensions, using as an example a retired public servant taking up a new position teaching in a state school, and found that it was unconstitutional to use an administrative order to set a ceiling on a second pension.
From a legalistic view point, this finding is proper and correct. However, from a public welfare standpoint, Interpretation No. 485 is, perhaps, more appropriate.
This interpretation states that “in light of limited state resources, the legislation of social policies has to consider the following factors to make an appropriate allocation of welfare resources: the economic and financial conditions of the state, and the principle of resource utilization, as well as attending to the equity between beneficiaries and other people. The legislation should also consider the beneficiaries’ finances, income, family support costs and welfare needs. It should not base considerations for special treatment on the beneficiaries’ position or status. The rules governing the ways and amount of provision should also be consistent with the basic needs of beneficiaries, and should not exceed the extent necessary for welfare purposes, thus resulting in overprovision.”
According to media reports, 60 percent of the nation’s annual income taxes is spent on financing pensions for retired public servants. However, calculating expenditures that go into paying pensions is not a simple task. There are the central government payments to retired military personnel, public school teachers and civil servants, and then payments to teachers and civil servants at the local government level, in addition to the 18 percent preferential interest rate at both central and local government levels, so the figure is likely to be higher than 60 percent.
Also, the average retirement age for public servants is far lower than that of recipients of national labor insurance pensions and other pension schemes; the former’s income replacement rate is also much higher than that of private sector workers.
As Aristotle said: “Everywhere inequality is a cause of revolution.”
Interpretation No. 485 put it well in about 100 words, but who is going to follow through on it? Those in power? Those with vested interests? The general public? The next generation? Taiwan is undoubtedly heading the way of Greece. The burden on the national coffers is unsustainable. When the levee breaks, everyone is going to know about it. When it does, what good will all those numbers in people’s bank books do them?
Kuo Ming-cheng is a professor at National Chengchi University’s Department of Law. Chen Jwu-shang is an associate professor at National Kaohsiung Normal University’s general education center.
Translated by Paul Cooper
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a cornerstone of US foreign policy, advancing not only humanitarian aid but also the US’ strategic interests worldwide. The abrupt dismantling of USAID under US President Donald Trump ‘s administration represents a profound miscalculation with dire consequences for global influence, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. By withdrawing USAID’s presence, Washington is creating a vacuum that China is eager to fill, a shift that will directly weaken Taiwan’s international position while emboldening Beijing’s efforts to isolate Taipei. USAID has been a crucial player in countering China’s global expansion, particularly in regions where
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
With the manipulations of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), it is no surprise that this year’s budget plan would make government operations difficult. The KMT and the TPP passing malicious legislation in the past year has caused public ire to accumulate, with the pressure about to erupt like a volcano. Civic groups have successively backed recall petition drives and public consensus has reached a fever-pitch, with no let up during the long Lunar New Year holiday. The ire has even breached the mindsets of former staunch KMT and TPP supporters. Most Taiwanese have vowed to use
Despite the steady modernization of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), the international community is skeptical of its warfare capabilities. Late last month, US think tank RAND Corp published two reports revealing the PLA’s two greatest hurdles: personnel challenges and structural difficulties. The first RAND report, by Jennie W. Wenger, titled Factors Shaping the Future of China’s Military, analyzes the PLA’s obstacles with recruitment, stating that China has long been committed to attracting young talent from top universities to augment the PLA’s modernization needs. However, the plan has two major constraints: demographic changes and the adaptability of the PLA’s military culture.