The reformed pension systems for military personnel, civil servants and public-school teachers took effect on Sunday. President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) determination to plan and carry out reforms undoubtedly outshines her predecessor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) now that she has completed the pension cuts, to which some groups took offense.
Theoretically, her approval ratings should have increased significantly with the completion of this difficult task, but while showing slight growth, the results of several opinion polls have fallen short of expectations.
Past experience provides guidance for the future and two years of pushing for pension reform provides a crucial insight: Doing the right thing is not enough; it also has to be done the right way. This means that the social cost of reform should be as low as possible. If there is a high price to pay in the form of social division and internal discord, the public is likely to be unhappy.
If we could turn back time to when Tsai took office in 2016 and if the government and the Democratic Progressive Party could have rethought their push to reform pensions, it is unlikely that they would have followed the same path again.
With the exception of groups with vested interests, a majority of the public has long agreed about the need to address pensions. It was not only one of Tsai’s campaign pledges, but also a policy that the Ma administration wanted to implement, but abandoned.
To carry out such systemic reform, the first priority is to simplify the issue and do everything possible not to further complicate matters. The shorter the process, the better — and this also relates to efficiency. The reform target should be simple to reduce external intervention.
The government should therefore have mainly communicated with military personnel, civil servants and public-school teachers. There was no need to bring people in other sectors into the matter unless absolutely necessary.
To gain understanding from military personnel, civil servants and public-school teachers, two basic courses of action should have been taken.
First, the authorities in charge should have shown sincerity and been persuasive.
Tsai and Vice President Chen Chien-jen (陳建仁) have apologized to the affected retirees for cutting their pensions.
If they had adopted this attitude at the beginning of the reform push two years ago, asking that everyone share in the pain, the social atmosphere and result might have been very different.
Second, the administration should have prepared extensively.
To achieve substantial dialogue requires a carefully calculated plan to convince the stakeholders that the government is not cutting their pensions without reason. The government should have then adjusted the plan in accordance with their feedback, reached a compromise and finalized it.
The purpose of last year’s national conference on pension reform should have been to consolidate public consensus, not draw up administrative measures for the policy.
Tsai administration officials might think that this is nothing but “belated advice,” but if they do not engage in self-reflection, are they not doomed to repeat the same mistakes?
Thus, giving belated advice is absolutely necessary. Only an administrative team eager to learn and constantly evolve should be qualified to remain in power, because people will think it capable of acting faster and better the next time.
Tzou Jiing-wen is the editor-in-chief of the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times).
Translated by Eddy Chang
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS