There are four friends: a military officer, a civil servant, a public school teacher and a police officer. They started in their respective jobs at the same time, and all four are on the same salary. They make a fixed monthly contribution of 15 percent of twice their salary to their retirement pension accounts. Yet when they retire, the monthly pension of the police officer is NT$10,000 to NT$20,000 (US$303.36 to US$606.72), higher than that of the others. Something in that picture seems wrong.
Recently, legislators from the opposition blue and white camps jointly passed an amendment to Article 35 of the Police Personnel Management Act (警察人員人事條例), raising the maximum “replacement ratio” of retired police officers to 80 percent of their original salary. For retired basic-level police officers, about 80 percent of them could even receive a monthly pension as high as NT$74,544. That is more than a deputy minister might expect to make. That is not just wrong, it is absurd.
When they are still in service, all military officers, civil servants, public teachers and police officers make a fixed monthly contribution to their retirement pension accounts according to the same standard monthly contribution rate. After the amendment, the retirement pension of police officers now exceeds that of the others, and not by a small proportion. That not only accelerates the exhaustion of the government’s pension fund, but also causes a serious impact on the fairness of the pension system, while exacerbating generational inequality.
Many of my colleagues in the public sector are unwilling to retire early due to the wide gap between their salary and retirement pension. However, after the amendment, the gap between the salary and retirement pension of police officers has been greatly narrowed. That would inevitably increase their willingness to retire early. Early retirements might lead to insufficient police numbers, which could in turn affect social order and impact the general public.
Since military officers, civil servants, public teachers and police officers make a fixed monthly contribution to their retirement pension accounts based on the same standard, how could lawmakers from the blue and white camps amend the law to raise the monthly retirement pension for police officers alone? Did they hold any public hearings or fully communicate and discuss with the military officers, civil servants and public teachers?
Once it eventually exhausts the government pension fund, would young police officers still be able to receive their pension in the future?
Yeh Yu-cheng is a secretary at the Pingtung Public Health Bureau.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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