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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS