On Tuesday, a bill to recover wrongfully paid government pensions — under a regulation passed in 1971 that allowed KMT officials who held public office to add years worked as a party official to their civil service record — passed its third legislative reading.
About 381 retirees, including former vice president Lien Chan (連戰), former Examination Yuan president John Kuan (關中) and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Vice Chairman Jason Hu (胡志強), who are paid retirement benefits based on their combined service will have their retirement payments recalculated and be required to return excess payments.
This is intended to display the government’s determination to carry through reform, but many of those affected say that applying the bill retroactively and requiring that payments be returned is unreasonable.
The 1971 regulation was the result of an abnormal situation. In the one-party state, there was a revolving door between the government and the KMT. After some time in government, officials transferred to the KMT to gain more experience, and party position sometimes even outranked government positions. It was normal for the party to train government officials and even direct government policy.
We just have to look at Beijing today to understand that party secretaries have more power than provincial governors or ministers, and to understand what it was like in Taiwan during the one-party state era.
Since officials could move freely between the KMT and the government, benefits continued seamlessly, which of course was the main reason for the system that accepts service in the KMT as qualifying for national pension payments.
Constitutional interpretations 5, 7 and 12 — issued in 1952 and 1953 — state that party secretaries, legislators and party officials were not civil servants, making the practice unconstitutional. However, at the time, the party overruled everything and the Council of Grand Justices’ interpretation fell on deaf ears.
The government continued to condone combining government and party duties. The Examination Yuan was guilty of dereliction of duty and violation of the Constitution, but it was also powerless. The practice has remained and has not been addressed, even though the KMT has lost government power on two occasions.
Given the democratic and legal sophistication of Taiwan and Taiwanese today, a practice that unfairly exploits government resources should be recognized as a violation of social justice and should no longer be tolerated. Yet historical inertia and the stubborn resistance put up by remnants of the one-party state prevented the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) from shaking up the party-state during its first presidential term, when it did not control the legislature.
This time, the DPP has the political clout to pursue this goal, and it can no longer turn a blind eye.
The government’s personnel system may be flawed, but those who enjoy the benefits of combined years of service do not do so out of greed; the regulations are not their fault.
Still, accepting such unreasonable income is shameful. Returning the overpayments to the government would give them peace of mind. If they are not enjoying an adequate income after their retirement, returning the money could mean economic problems, but the act has incorporated a minimum income level and it would only affect those that have a monthly income of NT$25,000 or more.
The combined years of service regulation resulted from historical factors, and the facts of the situation are abundantly clear. Fewer than 400 people would be affected. This is a first step toward ending an unjust system and correcting past wrongs.
There are moments in history when America has turned its back on its principles and withdrawn from past commitments in service of higher goals. For example, US-Soviet Cold War competition compelled America to make a range of deals with unsavory and undemocratic figures across Latin America and Africa in service of geostrategic aims. The United States overlooked mass atrocities against the Bengali population in modern-day Bangladesh in the early 1970s in service of its tilt toward Pakistan, a relationship the Nixon administration deemed critical to its larger aims in developing relations with China. Then, of course, America switched diplomatic recognition
The international women’s soccer match between Taiwan and New Zealand at the Kaohsiung Nanzih Football Stadium, scheduled for Tuesday last week, was canceled at the last minute amid safety concerns over poor field conditions raised by the visiting team. The Football Ferns, as New Zealand’s women’s soccer team are known, had arrived in Taiwan one week earlier to prepare and soon raised their concerns. Efforts were made to improve the field, but the replacement patches of grass could not grow fast enough. The Football Ferns canceled the closed-door training match and then days later, the main event against Team Taiwan. The safety
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz has said that “war is politics by other means,” while investment guru Warren Buffett has said that “tariffs are an act of war.” Both aphorisms apply to China, which has long been engaged in a multifront political, economic and informational war against the US and the rest of the West. Kinetically also, China has launched the early stages of actual global conflict with its threats and aggressive moves against Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, and its support for North Korea’s reckless actions against South Korea that could reignite the Korean War. Former US presidents Barack Obama