Last year, the combined hidden debt at all levels of government amounted to NT$15.67 trillion (US$530 billion), a record high. Most of this was made up of pensions for military personnel, civil servants and public school teachers and labor insurance. The pensions for these three categories of state employees under the old and the new systems account for NT$8.31 trillion of that sum, more than half of all hidden government debt, and labor insurance makes up for NT$6.7 trillion. If the government goes bankrupt, it is because of these state pensions.
This is no alarmist talk. The situation fully explains the urgent need for pension system reform.
Apart from war, another important reason why countries go bankrupt is the heavy burden posed by pensions for military personnel, civil servants and public school teachers.
In Greece, civil servants received 14 months of salary every year and had one month of paid holidays. Every month, they could receive a maximum monthly bonus of up to 1,300 euros (US$1,688), and they could retire at the age of 40 and get a pension at an income replacement rate of 111 percent.
When a civil servant died, their children could continue to receive their parent’s pension, regardless of their marital status.
The European Commission has estimated that by 2050, expenditure on Greek civil servants’ pensions would make up 20 percent of Greece’s GDP.
Of course, the Greek economy is decidedly unhealthy: There is almost no important manufacturing industry and it relies mainly on tourism.
When the economy shrank, it was impossible to increase tax revenue and as a result, the country issued debt to get by. It was only natural that it would not be able to cope with the retirement and welfare expenditures for the public sector, finally making it the first victim of the EU debt crisis.
It is very simple to resolve a deficit: Reduce government expenses. It is also necessary to reform, and the simplest way to achieve results is to streamline the civil service and cut retirement pensions. That is why Greece recently announced that it would cut 15,000 people from its civil service by the end of next year. This was soon followed by an announcement from Portugal, which is doing almost as badly, that it will cut its civil service by 30,000 employees. By implementing a major plan for public spending cuts, the country forecasts it will save 6 billion euros in three years.
President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government clearly understands how serious Taiwan’s problems are.
Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) sees Greece as a warning and frankly says that if Taiwan’s system for military personnel, civil servants and public school teachers is not reformed soon and their high pension income replacement rate and low contributions continue, then “what happened to Greece could of course one day happen to us, too.”
However, if the current situation is allowed to continue, Taiwan could end up doing even worse than Greece.
When Greece encountered problems, it could ask for assistance from the EU, other eurozone countries and the IMF. However, as Taiwan is internationally marginalized, if the government’s finances were to collapse, we might have nowhere to turn for help.
The Ma administration is aware of this situation, but due to political concerns, its proposed pension reform does not cut to the heart of the issue.
The major thrust of the reform is not directed at pensions for military personnel, civil servants and public school teachers, but at cuts in the labor pension.
The result is that, according to the government’s reform proposal, the lowest monthly pension payment for civil servants is higher than the highest pension for non-public-sector employees. This is not reform — this is finding a scapegoat for the financial collapse. In the eyes of the Ma administration, that scapegoat should be the nation’s non-public-sector employees.
The unreasonable parts of the pension reform proposal must be improved if the we are to find a solution to the problem.
The most criticized part is that the government uses most of its resources to care for military personnel, civil servants and public school teachers, and their benefits include educational subsidies for their children, annual year-end bonuses, performance incentives, a large funeral subsidy of three to five months salary, a wedding subsidy of two months salary, maternity benefits — two months’ salary for each child — and a NT$16,000 annual National Travel Card.
If a civil servant dies, their spouse will continue to receive their monthly pension for the rest of their life, and when salaries are increased for civil servants on active duty, the pensions for retired personnel see a corresponding increase. Retired personnel receive an annual relief bonus, as well as bonuses for the Spring Festival, the Dragon Boat Festival and the Mid-Autumn Festival.
The dispute over the annual relief bonus toward the end of last year revealed that the bonus, astonishingly, cost more than NT$20 billion each year. The preferential interest rate on part of their pension savings currently costs the government between NT$70 billion and NT$80 billion a year. That will increase to NT$140 billion by 2015. If this benefit is not abolished, the government will have to spend another NT$2 trillion or more.
If these inappropriate benefits are abolished and if the income replacement rate — unique in the world — is lowered, a large part of the fiscal black hole could be filled.
The biggest obstacle to reform is the government’s unwillingness to risk a backlash from vested interests. The government’s pension reform is not aimed at the vested interest groups, but is instead victimizing the most disadvantaged workers.
Hoping that the vested interest group will wake up and realize that they should accept reform to benefit others and avoid building debt for the younger generation is unrealistic.
Only if non-public-sector employees wake up and take concrete action to monitor the government so that it stops favoring specific groups, while sacrificing the rights and interest of workers will it be possible to stop reform from going astray.
Translated by Perry Svensson
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
The US election result will significantly impact its foreign policy with global implications. As tensions escalate in the Taiwan Strait and conflicts elsewhere draw attention away from the western Pacific, Taiwan was closely monitoring the election, as many believe that whoever won would confront an increasingly assertive China, especially with speculation over a potential escalation in or around 2027. A second Donald Trump presidency naturally raises questions concerning the future of US policy toward China and Taiwan, with Trump displaying mixed signals as to his position on the cross-strait conflict. US foreign policy would also depend on Trump’s Cabinet and
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
Republican candidate and former US president Donald Trump is to be the 47th president of the US after beating his Democratic rival, US Vice President Kamala Harris, in the election on Tuesday. Trump’s thumping victory — winning 295 Electoral College votes against Harris’ 226 as of press time last night, along with the Republicans winning control of the US Senate and possibly the House of Representatives — is a remarkable political comeback from his 2020 defeat to US President Joe Biden, and means Trump has a strong political mandate to implement his agenda. What does Trump’s victory mean for Taiwan, Asia, deterrence