Reforming the pension system certainly has not been easy for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), yet it is something that must be done. Unlike the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which relies on attracting voters with promises of benefits, the DPP started out as a party of reform, and most voters who back reform support the DPP. For this reason, President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration must push for reform or risk losing supporters.
It is perfectly normal for people with vested interests to defend those interests. Some of them have turned to support the DPP out of dislike for the KMT, but the DPP’s effort to promote pension reform is now causing tension between the party and such voters. Obviously, in pushing for reforms, the DPP stands to lose support and is unlikely to gain popularity among this group. Therefore, the key issue should be how to minimize the loss of support rather than how to gain support. As the KMT is falling apart, now is an ideal time for carrying out reforms.
Many people considered former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) an excellent mayor of Taipei. His strategy was to use mainstream public opinion as leverage against conservatives who resisted reforms.
For example, he transformed the Taipei City Government by changing the attitudes of public servants: Before his tenure, officials at Taipei City Hall often had a condescending attitude, but now they have changed and see themselves as serving city residents. Although Chen did lose support among public servants, he gained recognition from the majority of Taipei residents. This shows that, as long as one has the support of the public, it is alright to make a few people unhappy.
It is human nature to defend one’s vested interests. Lowering the income replacement ratio should be the last solution for balancing pension funds as it would offend military personnel, public servants and public-school teachers.
Before retirement, each person has different duties and responsibilities, so it makes sense that everyone receives a different pension. However, after retirement, each person’s contribution is the same. A person’s pension therefore should not be based on their past salaries. The traditional pension scheme for political appointees is particularly unfair: After two years in office as a political appointee, an official is eligible for a pension plan that takes into account not only their experience as an appointee but also any previous experience in the military or in the public sector.
The best way to reform the pension system is to set a ceiling for pensions. The ceiling should be set based on the performance of the pension fund. While a small number of high-ranking officers in the military and public sector might be unhappy with such a change, most would welcome it with open arms. This way, the DPP could minimize the loss of support that reform will necessarily entail.
The national pension system is mostly funded by the government. In the same way as the National Health Insurance (NHI) program, it is a social benefit rather than a commercial insurance. With commercial insurance schemes, the more one pays, the more benefits one gets. However, with social benefits, the more one makes, the more one pays, yet the benefits remain the same for everyone.
This is why, in the NHI system, although premiums vary from person to person, everyone receives the same medical benefits. From the standpoint of a social benefit, it is only fair to set a ceiling on pensions to ensure the system’s sustainability.
Chen Mao-hsiung is a retired National Sun Yat-sen University professor and chairman of the Society for the Promotion of Taiwanese Security.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
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 Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercises, the largest naval exercise in the region, are aimed at deepening international collaboration and interaction while strengthening tactical capabilities and flexibility in tackling maritime crises. China was invited to participate in RIMPAC in 2014 and 2016, but it was excluded this year. The underlying reason is that Beijing’s ambitions of regional expansion and challenging the international order have raised global concern. The world has made clear its suspicions of China, and its exclusion from RIMPAC this year will bring about a sea change in years to come. The purpose of excluding China is primarily
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