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
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS