The Long-term Care Plan was originally one of the most important aspects of the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) social welfare agenda. Its original intention was well-meaning — to provide care for the elderly population, reduce the burden on families and make society as a whole more compassionate.
However, after having been implemented for several years, the public response to the plan did not meet expectations — it has caused resentment even on the front lines. The most direct example of this is that home care workers, who were supposed to be the policy’s greatest beneficiaries and promoters, have publicly expressed an unwillingness to support the DPP during elections. This alarming gap highlights a major disconnect between the policy and public opinion. So what exactly is the problem?
Home care workers earn low wages, despite their long working hours, and generally lack respect in society. While the government keeps touting long-term care as a social responsibility, the actual assurances provided for those in the field are insufficient, and frontline caregivers feel that they have been exploited as a result.
On top of this, families that employ home care services typically have negative experiences. Many complain about overly cumbersome application procedures, long waiting times and a lack of resources, leaving families with no real care services. Over time, the long-term care policy has become one that sounds ideal on the surface, but is entirely disconnected from reality.
This is one of the main reasons why the DPP has continued to see a decline in votes in the past three elections. The DPP suffered a devastating loss in the 2018 local elections, where the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) won a majority of city, county and municipal governments. The party suffered yet another blow during the 2022 local elections. Although President William Lai (賴清德) won last year’s presidential election, his vote share dropped to just 40.05 percent and the DPP became the minority in the Legislative Yuan.
These warning signs cannot be blamed on voters “not understanding policy,” but rather on the ruling party for turning a blind eye to the true feelings of citizens. Policy is more than just briefs and reports — it requires a humane approach that focuses on the concrete experiences of peoples’ daily lives.
For the public, long-term care is not some flowery slogan, but a real need: “My elderly family member needs immediate help,” “I can afford the costs,” and “I trust that they will receive quality care.” Regardless of how well-designed a policy is, if the public’s needs are not met, it is nothing but an empty promise.
Thus, the DPP should devise a plan for concrete improvement. First, it should improve the salary system for home care workers by incorporating caregiving into a semi-public protection framework to ensure that wages at least match the average labor market salary. It should also expand opportunities for further education and promotion in the caregiving field.
Next, it should simplify the application process for families seeking care by introducing a single-window and digital system, allowing families to access care services quickly instead of being overwhelmed by paperwork.
Third, it should implement measures to improve quality control of care services to ensure consistency with service standards and avoid regional disparities, and further establish complaint and real-time assistance mechanisms.
Finally, it should promote a community care model that encourages cooperation between local clinics, community centers and volunteers, so that care is more closely connected with daily life.
At its core, politics is about more than just governance — it is about possessing empathy for citizens. If long-term care becomes a more severe policy dilemma, it could lead to another major defeat for the DPP government.
Hsiao Hsi-huei is retired.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS