On Sept. 3, thousands of current and former government employees, including military personnel, civil servants and public-school teachers, marched to Ketagalan Boulevard from four directions to oppose “stigmatization” and demand “dignity.” The rally focused public attention on the pension system, with many wondering whether President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration would continue to push for reform.
There were several things unusual about the protest that should be addressed.
First, Republic of China (ROC) flags were seen everywhere. If pension reform were the issue, then the protest should have stuck to pension reform. However, protesters brought out ROC flags, as if they were some sort of talismans that would offer special protection.
How would carrying the flags help? Was it to emphasize that, despite the anger writ on their faces, protesters were, first and foremost, simply being patriotic? It was surprising that a protest on pension reform could be related to patriotism.
If we must talk about patriotism — and if we allow ourselves to indulge in a similar kind of random association — we might as well come up with the conclusion that for anyone who is truly patriotic, there should be absolutely no reason to object to reforming the pension system, because it would reduce the fiscal burden of the nation, which should always come before the individual.
Furthermore, if they were patriotic, why did they fail to show up with their ROC flags at the 2005 protest against the passage of China’s “Anti-Secession” Law? If patriotism is indeed the last refuge of a scoundrel, then national flags would be the fig leaf concealing their vested interests from view.
Second, their demand that the government treat them with dignity and stop defaming them is ambiguous and impractical. Many representatives of public-sector retirees — out of fear of criticism — claim they do not oppose pension reforms, but in reality are only open to very limited changes in their pension plans.
Tsai early on said that the problems lie with the pension system, which overcompensates public-sector retirees and not with those who receive the pension. She also acknowledged their hard work and their contributions to the country. If anything, her remarks showed she treated retired public employees with respect, and they were by no means stigmatized.
When the protesters had a chance to voice their views on pension reform, all they did was talk endlessly about the principle of non-retroactivity, legitimate expectations, or the pension scheme as a legally binding contract between the government and the retiree, but never actually specified their stance on the issue.
If they had the nerve to say what they really wanted, it would probably be that they would never allow reforms to strip them of their vested interests. Apparently, everything they said about stigmatization and dignity was just a red herring: the real issue was the pension reform.
Third, the whole protest was staged for the purpose of defending personal interests rather than to support charity or uphold justice. In 2013, tens of thousands of people took to the streets of Taipei to protest the death of army corporal Hung Chung-chiu (洪仲丘). How many of them actually knew Hung in person?
In the same year, many demonstrated in support of Chang Sen-wen (張森文), the owner of Chang Pharmacy, which was demolished in what became known as the Dapu Incident (大埔). How many of them have had the same experience of having their homes demolished or farmland expropriated by force?
Does everyone who opposes nuclear power live near the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in New Taipei City’s Gongliao District (貢寮)? How about the 500,000 people who participated in the protest against the cross-strait service trade agreement? Were they fighting for public interests and justice or were they simply trying to secure their own interests?
Compared with private employees, farmers and fishermen, military personnel, civil servants and public-school teachers are in a relatively good place in society, and are clearly benefiting more from the current system. Should they not feel ashamed for going on the street to protest reform?
Even more disappointing was the fact that former premier and retired army general Hau Pei-tsun (郝柏村), as well as many other retired high-ranking military officers, decided to attend the protest on Armed Forces Day for their own pensions — even though they did nothing to defend the country’s sovereignty at the 2005 protest against the “Anti-Secession” Law.
In a democratic country, everything ranging from the Constitution and the official name of the country to the national flag can be reformed. There is no reason why the pension system should be an exception. When one is honest and reasonable, there is no way the others can succeed in stigmatizing them; and when one shows respect, others will respect them.
However, when one demands respect, but refuses to give up their vested interests — even at the expense of stopping the nation from moving forward — they do not deserve that respect.
Chang Kuo-tsai is a retired associate professor at National Hsinchu University of Education and a former deputy secretary-general of the Taiwan Association of University Professors.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
RSS