I am a public-school teacher and I will retire within the next 10 years. Regardless of which version of the pension reform act is passed, my pension is certain to shrink. Despite this, I give my full support to the ongoing effort to reform a pension system that violates the principle of intergenerational justice, in particular the part that is aimed at military personnel, civil servants and public-school teachers.
A friend of mine 10 years my senior retired a few years ago. Not long after, we were making an appointment to meet, but he said it would have to be a bit later, because he had to first go and take care of something “that I feel a bit uncomfortable talking about.”
He was going to the bank to open the special savings account that would allow him to receive the preferential 18 percent interest rate on part of his savings.
This friend of mine is the kind of person who practices what he preaches, who is concerned for society and his friends. He is doing fine financially, but since this is the government policy in place, and although it made him feel uneasy, he still had to take advantage of the privilege, which would give him another NT$20,000 each month.
This is human nature, and there is no reason for us to criticize any individual who is taking advantage of the program. However, it is absolutely necessary that we discuss and criticize this kind of policy.
It is an indisputable fact that if the pension system is not reformed, it would create insurmountable fiscal problems before long. Even more important, if those of us who belong to my generation, and in particular military personnel, civil servants and public-school teachers of my generation, continue to take advantage of this generous pension, the cost will have to be shouldered by today’s young generation.
This is a source of intergenerational injustice, and this is the reason that some young public-school teachers are standing up, expressing their support for reform and voicing their opinions about the teachers’ organizations that are engaged in the anti-reform campaign.
A few days ago, as the legislature planned to review the reform bill at a committee meeting, legislators and others intending to participate in the meeting were forcefully and violently stopped from doing so by anti-reform groups.
Some of the protesters and their organizations were clearly in it for their own selfish interest, and a while back, they even referred to themselves as the “800 Heroes” — after a group of soldiers who resisted the Japanese occupation of Shanghai in 1937 — as they were protesting outside the Legislative Yuan.
Despite the illustrious name, they did not gather more than a couple of hundred protesters and failed miserably at winning public support.
Anti-reform groups keep repeating the principle of legitimate expectation, but to be honest, it is just a matter of not caring one iota about national finances or intergenerational justice, while refusing to accommodate even the smallest compromise on their own interests.
However, the highest responsibility for a government is to live up to and protect the legitimate expectations of the nation’s citizenry as a whole and not just the expectations of a small clique.
And another thing: The anti-reform protesters’ loud slogan about being opposed to vilification is becoming more laughable by the day.
Look at these so-called “800 Heroes” and the violence that occurred outside the Legislative Yuan: They are doing a pretty good job of vilifying themselves, and they still have the stomach to tell other people not to vilify them.
Chi Chun-chieh is a professor in the department of ethnic relations and cultures at National Dong Hwa University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS