Reform of the preferential interest rates for retired public servants was announced to great fanfare, despite the paltry gains involved. Every year, NT$70 billion (US$2.4 billion) is spent subsidizing interest payments. These reforms will save perhaps NT$2 billion to NT$3 billion, and will neither help the government dig itself out of the financial hole it is in, nor calm public anger.
Monthly pension payments for this privileged group, coupled with the preferential interest rate, mean that these pensions are worth between 75 percent and 95 percent of public servants’ original salary. If the pension is 85 percent of the salary, a person previously earning NT$70,000 a month would then be due a pension of almost NT$60,000 a month. Tax on this is minimal, as no tax is payable on the first NT$65,000 anyway, and then there are various exemptions. If active civil servants get a raise, retired ones get a raise on their pension, while subsidies — costing the government NT$10 billion every year — are handed out to those supporting children in school.
Compare this with the average worker’s NT$12,000 monthly pension from the new system, which amounts to 17 percent of the salary of our civil servant above. Even if a worker contributes the maximum amount of insurance — NT$43,900 a year for a total of 40 years — they would still only get NT$20,000 a month. Under the old system, some workers can also receive a retirement package of up to 45 months’ salary, paid by the employer. With an original salary of NT$50,000, that would mean a one-off payment of NT$2.25 million. Spread over 20 years this is not even 20 percent of the original salary. Factor in the monthly pension payments of the average worker and this still only adds up to less than 40 percent of a civil servant’s salary. Furthermore, the majority of businesses in Taiwan are SMEs, which have a life span of about 10 years. Only around 10 percent of workers even receive a retirement payout from their company anyway.
Is it fair that there is so much disparity in the pension systems for public servants and the rest of us? That sound you are hearing is the death rattle of the principle of trust.
The government’s principle of wealth allocation really only applies to about 100 retired government officials, which will save about NT$30 million. Twenty percent of the 400,000 accounts with the preferential rate have savings of NT$2 million or more. That is NT$30,000 in interest every month. It seems likely anyone that has that much in savings would have been a mid to high-ranking official, already on a high salary. If these people were included in the principle, the government would save the taxpayer NT$30 billion a year.
How ironic it is that the very thing that most harms Taiwan in international competitiveness ratings is the lack of administrative efficiency, while the strength of its SMEs is singled out as one of its strongest competitive edges. Those criticized for inefficiency are given an iron rice bowl, while those praised for their industry are not only paid less, but shoulder the greater tax burden to support the former group of supposedly “special” people. No wonder the public is up in arms. Nobody really paid it much mind in the past, when Taiwan’s economy was booming, but now that salaries have stagnated, and in some cases are falling, patience is wearing thin. Even Examination Yuan President John Kuan (關中) conceded there were failings in the career-based system of civil service in a report submitted after a visit to three northern European countries last year. These failings included the emphasis on fairness over flexibility, the lack of skills testing, poor work/life balance and salaries based on seniority, not performance.
Given the failings of the system, the lack of efficiency and the disproportionately favorable welfare, it’s no wonder public servants have found themselves in the public’s crosshairs.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS