by Brian Hioe
語言:
English
Photo Credit: Fu Kun-chi/Facebook
THE KMT HAS sought to leverage on pension reforms as of late, as part of its current slate of pork barrel policies aimed at benefiting political groups it has historically experienced support for. As part of these moves, the KMT has sought to capitalize on confusion over the balance of powers in the Taiwanese legislature.
In particular, the KMT currently holds the majority in the legislature. As a result, in recent times, the KMT has seen fit to push a series of controversial measures through the legislature, physically blocking DPP members from being present for the vote.
Yet it proves ironic, as the KMT recently pushed through legal changes increasing the maximum income replacement ratio to 80 percent for members of the coast guard, firefighters, police, and members of the National Air Service Corps. This was accomplished through changes to the Police Personnel Management Act.
After doing so, KMT legislative caucus convener Fu Kun-chi subsequently held a press conference with the National Civil Servant Association criticizing the “government” for excluding civil servants from the scope of the legislation, with the association calling for income replacement ratios to be rolled back for civil servants and raised to match those of firefighters, police, etc. As the Lai administration has faced criticism in past months over workplace bullying among civil servants, Fu framed this again reflecting the disregard for civil servants by the government.
Photo credit: Fu Kun-chi/Facebook
Yet, again, as the KMT controls the legislature and has seen no issue with forcing bills into law without any DPP votes, it is the KMT that is in the position to pass legislation on the issue. Despite this, Fu has tried to pin blame for the issue on the DPP.
More generally, public servants, members of the police, and veterans enjoyed generous pensions from the government as a reward for political loyalty during authoritarian times. As such, these groups have historically supported the KMT, which knew that it needed to maintain support from such groups in order to establish political control during authoritarian times, and so sought to reward them generously.
As these generous pensions would bankrupt the pension system for society as a whole, the Tsai administration rolled back these pensions during its tenure. The KMT has sought to undo this for electoral purposes, so as to benefit the groups that have historically supported it, and with the aim that they will continue to support the KMT. Indeed, as such groups were given a large privilege of place during the authoritarian era, sometimes members of such groups have reacted against what they see as not being given the privileges and accord they once had.
Nevertheless, such actions have been criticized as potentially leading to the bankruptcy of the pension system, which would affect young people most of all. In this sense, the KMT’s pension reforms have been criticized as widening the gap between young and old and once again ensuring that young people lack the opportunities their elders had, in this sense, making the issue of pension reform about generational equality.
It is to be seen how the DPP pushes against the issue. The Executive Yuan has framed the matter as the KMT-controlled legislature once again seeking authority over the budget in a manner that contravenes the separation of powers, seeing as the Executive Yuan has authority over the budget and not the legislature in the constitution. Similarly, the matter has been framed as contravening the equality of public servant groups, in that the KMT sought to solely increase pensions for police and other such groups and not public servants–despite apparently seeking to blame the DPP on the matter.
Still, the KMT was a party that several years ago had less than 9,000 members under 40. Likewise, the KMT’s electoral defeats in past years have often been attributed to how the party has alienated young people, not only in terms of identity trends being against the party’s pan-Chinese nationalism, but because the party is seen as having contributed to a situation in which young people face opportunities. The DPP has not managed to fix the issue of inequality facing young people either, resulting in electoral stumbles for the party, but moves by the KMT that benefit the elderly at the expense of young people in such a blatant way are likely to lead to further anger against the party, if it is seen as pushing for such measures using its current control of the legislature.