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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS