In a situation where few can feel the economic recovery and where there is no growth either economically or in the employment rate, the 18 percent preferential interest rate on the savings of military personnel, civil servants and teachers merely serves to reinforce the feeling of unfairness and deprivation among the general public.
A political avalanche is in the making and it will bury the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) if it insists on supporting the 18 percent interest rate for these privileged groups.
The treatment of retired civil servants and the general public could not be more different. We are all citizens of the same nation, but while one group enjoys an 18 percent preferential interest rate on savings, everyone else receives 1 percent.
This is not only unfair, it is outrageous. No matter how the KMT and the government try to defend their position, they convince no one. One reason the reaction has been so vigorous was Examination Yuan President John Kuan’s (關中) explanation that civil servants are simply different from common people.
The Ministry of Civil Service argued that the introduction of reforms including the preferential 18 percent interest rate would save the nation NT$100 million (US$3.45 million) over five years, though this claim was immediately criticized as being less than it seemed.
Currently, the government spends more than NT$75 billion annually financing its preferential interest rate policy. That is almost NT$400 billion over five years of which NT$100 million represents just 0.025 percent.
This system is unfair and it speaks to an historical unfairness that reminds people how the KMT has consistently favored military personnel, civil servants and teachers. Their children have received educational subsidies while those of farmers and workers have not. Military personnel and teachers have also been exempt from paying taxes for decades, a benefit that will only be abolished next year, but they will be reimbursed for any money taken away in taxes.
Which other professions receive such privileged treatment?
Kuan defended the preferential interest rate by saying that civil servants are different from common people and that the country would take care of anyone with the ability to pass the civil service examination. However, any such statement is historically nonsensical when the channels to becoming a civil servant are a root cause of unfairness.
The KMT devised a way to select civil servants based on a provincial quota that was only abolished in 1994 following a constitutional amendment. The quotas were applied to all Chinese provinces, which meant that the acceptance rate for examinees whose home province was Taiwan was much lower than for those of candidates from other Chinese provinces.
In addition, almost 50 percent of soldiers who took the exam to transfer into the civil service were accepted, and they were the first to enjoy the preferential 18 percent interest rate.
This preferential interest rate has created and is creating unfairness, but the government continues to defend it. The KMT lost the township chief by-election in Caotun Township (草屯), Nantou County, the first election in the centennial year of the Republic of China. People are unhappy, and this defeat is only the beginning of a political avalanche that will bring down the KMT and cause it to disintegrate in next year’s legislative and presidential elections.
Hu Wen-hui is a media commentator.
TRANSLATED BY TAIJING WU
US aerospace company Boeing Co has in recent years been involved in numerous safety incidents, including crashes of its 737 Max airliners, which have caused widespread concern about the company’s safety record. It has recently come to light that titanium jet engine parts used by Boeing and its European competitor Airbus SE were sold with falsified documentation. The source of the titanium used in these parts has been traced back to an unknown Chinese company. It is clear that China is trying to sneak questionable titanium materials into the supply chain and use any ensuing problems as an opportunity to
It’s not every month that the US Department of State sends two deputy assistant secretary-level officials to Taiwan, together. Its rarer still that such senior State Department policy officers, once on the ground in Taipei, make a point of huddling with fellow diplomats from “like-minded” NATO, ANZUS and Japanese governments to coordinate their multilateral Taiwan policies. The State Department issued a press release on June 22 admitting that the two American “representatives” had “hosted consultations in Taipei” with their counterparts from the “Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” The consultations were blandly dubbed the “US-Taiwan Working Group on International Organizations.” The State
The Chinese Supreme People’s Court and other government agencies released new legal guidelines criminalizing “Taiwan independence diehard separatists.” While mostly symbolic — the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never had jurisdiction over Taiwan — Tamkang University Graduate Institute of China Studies associate professor Chang Wu-ueh (張五岳), an expert on cross-strait relations, said: “They aim to explain domestically how they are countering ‘Taiwan independence,’ they aim to declare internationally their claimed jurisdiction over Taiwan and they aim to deter Taiwanese.” Analysts do not know for sure why Beijing is propagating these guidelines now. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), deciphering the
Delegation-level visits between the two countries have become an integral part of transformed relations between India and the US. Therefore, the visit by a bipartisan group of seven US lawmakers, led by US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul to India from June 16 to Thursday last week would have largely gone unnoticed in India and abroad. However, the US delegation’s four-day visit to India assumed huge importance this time, because of the meeting between the US lawmakers and the Dalai Lama. This in turn brings us to the focal question: How and to what extent