Condolence Payments for Retired Civil Servants: A System is Required

Condolence Payments for Retired Civil Servants:
A System is Required
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 5, 2012

Summary: It is hard to imagine. But the ruling and opposition parties have changed their positions on the reform bill for year-end condolence payments to retired civil servants. Retired civil servants had become victims of Blue vs. Green political wrangling. The political calculations of the Green camp, and the dilemma faced by the Blue camp, were obvious. The ruling administration was scolded no matter which direction it leaned. Nevertheless it still lacked the courage to make a final decision. That was the most embarrassing aspect of all.

Full Text below:

It is hard to imagine. But the ruling and opposition parties have changed their positions on the reform bill for year-end condolence payments to retired civil servants. Premier Sean Chen has announced that the condolence payments will be slashed. Only those receiving less than 20,000 NT per month will continue receiving condolence payments. President Ma Ying-jeou publicly praised the move. Blue camp legislators reversed their stand. Green Camp legislators chose to support the Executive Yuan's version of the bill. This broke the deadlock on the month long controversy. Retired civil servants had become victims of Blue vs. Green political wrangling. The political calculations of the Green camp, and the dilemma faced by the Blue camp, were obvious. The ruling administration was scolded no matter which direction it leaned. Nevertheless it still lacked the courage to make a final decision. That was the most embarrassing aspect of all.

Every problem has a cause. Why have year end condolence payments for retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers been a problem? The main reason is the pension fund may go belly up. If it does, all manner of pension reforms will be floated. But pension reform must be well thought out. The devil is in the details, which have yet to be made public. The Executive Yuan has announced that it will slash year end condolence payments for retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers. It hopes to address imbalances in the treatment accorded labor, and the treatment accorded retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers. It hopes to avoid class conflict, which could lead to even greater social conflict. In other words, it matters not how low the salary for retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers was, or how meager their retirement benefits were. Taiwan has taken off economically. The treatment of retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers has improved. The treatment of the working class has not.

The Executive Yuan slashed year-end condolence payments for retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers. Haste may have resulted in waste. But it has substantially mollified labor discontent. Now a number of questions must be asked. One. Has the Executive Yuan's decision to slash condolence payments for retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers significantly lowered their standard of living? Two. Has undermining military personnnel, civil servants, and public school teachers actually benefitted labor? Three. Suppose the ruling and opposition parties agree that a real gap exists between benefits for the working class and benefits for retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers? Who has the courage to reduce these benefits, so that the disadvantaged may benefit?

All three questions have answers. One. The year end condolence payments have been slashed for retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers. Some of them have had their standard of living lowered. But not all. This can be verified by the authorities in charge. Remedies can be implemented, including Ministry of the Interior social welfare grants. Two. Robbing retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers will not raise enough money to pay labor. Labor income, including retirement funds, must be paid for by the market place. Government subsidies cannot fill the gap. The question is whether the government can make pie bigger.

Three. How much does the government intend to slash condolence payments to retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers? How much does the government intend to divert to social welfare or public works? Ten billion, or tens of billions? That has yet to be determined. According to the budget submitted to the Legislative Yuan, items may be deleted, but they may not be diverted to other uses. The current budget is smaller, not larger. Labor may have grievances. But the amount cannot be taken out of the hide of retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers.

As we can see, the Ma administration's problem with pensions is one that will not go away. The inevitable result will be egg on its face. But as the ruling government, it must nevertheless make a decision. One. Should it stick to the Executive Yuan's version? Or should it accept the compromise version proposed by the Blue camp legislative caucus? Either way, it must come forward and apologize. It must apologize to civil servants for undercutting their standard of living, and for the collective hardships they must endure. If any of them are in need, they must be given assistance. It must apologize to labor, for its failure to engage in comprehensive decision-making. It must apologize to the people as a whole for the controversy that has persisted. Two. As soon as possible, it must set forth a range of pension reforms. It must ensure that labor, which feels agrieved, knows that the government "feels its pain." The inequities may be difficult to address in the short term. But labor must feel that improvement in its lot is possible. Three. The Executive Yuan must understand that government decision-making requires adherence to procedure. The central government ministries and departments must not operate separately. They must not lobby separately. The Executive Yuan must not tolerate chaotic decision-making that makes final decisions difficult.

The DPP has been hostile towar retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers for decades. This hostility began during the "dang wai" era. It continued during the DPP's eight years in power. The DPP's opposition to the 18% interest rate on savings deposits for retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers is clear evidence of that. Alas, DPP officials who stepped down collected the 18% interest, all the same. They denounced the interest rate, all the same. During their reign they mobilized civil servants. They even ordered civil servants to join the DPP. For the sake of votes, they never hesistated to use retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers as their political whipping boy. DPP political appointees pocketed the 18% interest, all the same. Year-end condolence payments to retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers were issued, all the same. At the moment the DPP is demanding reform. It is even backing the Executive Yuan's version of the bill. To put it bluntly, it is playing a game. It is attempting to throw retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers to the wolves, in order to curry favor with the working class, whose numbers are significantly greater. The DPP is simultaneously attempting to prove that it cares about disadvantaged military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers. That is why it is supporting the Executive Yuan's version of the bill. But is the KMT that stupid? Does the KMT not know how to appeal to this tiny constituency?

The Ma administration trumpets reform. But reform does not mean limitless drawing from the public treasury. It does not mean eliminating condolence payments today, only to reinstate them tomorrow. Reform must be implemented by means of the system. It does not mean politicians sacrificing retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers each time an election rolls around. Political appointees, retired military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers, are government officials who are independent of political parties. They must not be sacrificed so that politicians can engage in populist demagoguery. President Ma and Premier Chen must stop thinking about who will govern tomorrow. They must apply themselves to making decisions today. Only decisiveness can quell controversy.

退休公務員慰問金 應快建立制度
2012-12-05
中國時報

很難想像，在退休公務員年終慰問金改革方案上，朝野易位。就在行政院長陳?宣布大砍慰問金，僅保留月領二萬元退休金以下者的慰問金，而馬英九總統公開讚揚後，藍營立委醞釀翻案；綠營立委卻決定力挺行政院版本，讓這個議題熱炒一個月而無法止歇，退休公務員的尊嚴成了藍綠政治角力的祭品；既看到綠營的政治算計，也看到藍營的進退失據。最尷尬的是，執政政府舉足無措，不論什麼決定都得挨罵，卻不敢拍板決定。

任何問題的發生都有其根源，為什麼會有軍公教年終慰問金的問題？主因在勞退基金可能破產，接續衍生的是各種金年制度的改革，不過，年金改革必須費點心力做成完整的配套，在配套未規畫出爐前，行政院即行宣布大砍軍公教年終慰問金，以撫平勞工與軍公教待遇福利之間的不平，避免因為階級矛盾造成更大的社會衝突。換言之，不論早年軍公教的薪資有多低，退休待遇有多差，相對於台灣經濟起飛後的發展，軍公教待遇福利已經長足進展，而勞工階級遠遠趕不上。

行政院對大砍軍公教年終慰問金的決策可能失之於快，但相當程度換取了勞工抗爭情緒之降溫。現在要問的是：第一，行政院的決策是否確實對部分遭大砍慰問金的退休軍公教造成生活上實質的損傷；第二，讓軍公教尊嚴受傷的結果是否真能拉抬勞工福利待遇？第三，如果朝野都承認勞工階級與軍公教之間福利待遇確有落差，那麼誰有膽氣讓相對有利者減少其利益，讓相對不利者能因此受惠？

上述三個問題都有答案，第一，遭大砍年終慰問金的退休軍公教，一定有人生活因此實質受傷，但肯定不是全部，這是可以經過主管機關查核並另覓補救方案的，比方說，內政部的其他社會福利補助；第二，割了軍公教的肉補不了勞工失的血，勞工所得包括其退休處遇是要由市場機制同步彌補的，不是政府片面補貼可能完全拉平其落差，重點在政府如何做大市場之餅？第三，砍掉軍公教的慰問金而省下的國家預算不論是百多億或數十億，政府到底要挪移到社會福利還是公共建設，尚無定論，但依照立法院審查政府預算，能刪卻不能挪移於人增加其他科目的規定，此刻政府面對的是減法預算，而非加法預算，勞工即使有怨都不能掛帳到軍公教頭上而得到撫平。

由此觀之，馬政府面對燒不停的年金之火，滿臉豆花是必然的結果，但是，身為執政政府挨罵還是得做出決策，第一，不論是維持政院版或者接受藍委折衷版，都要出面道歉，前者是要向因此可能生活需求受損者致歉，請他們共體時艱，若有困難者另案協助，後者則要為自己決策不夠周詳引爆爭議向全民致歉；第二，盡速提出各種年金的改革方案，讓相對不平的勞工感覺政府體會到各階層民眾的生活都被注意，即使一時半刻很難全面拉平，但有解決並逐年改善的可能；第三，行政院必須深切了解，政府決策有其運作機制，不容中央政府各部會各自運作、各自遊說，縱容決策混亂，終至拍不了板而難決。

民進黨與軍公教利益為敵非始於今朝，從黨外在野時期如此，即使執政八年也從未放棄操作，退休軍公教十八％優存利率就是明證，執政卸任後照拿者比比皆是，放話痛罵者所在多有，執政時期既動員公務員，甚至要求文官入黨，然而，為了選舉無時無刻不以軍公教為祭品，十八％民進黨政務官照拿，軍公教年終慰問金照發，此刻民進黨訴求改革又力挺政院版，說穿了，也是避重就輕，企圖損及軍公教以討好相對多數的勞工階層，但又企圖反證民進黨也會照顧軍公教之弱勢，因此支持政院版，國民黨又豈會笨到不懂以最小範圍示惠示好？

馬政府口口聲聲要改革，改革的定義不是從人民有限的荷包挖錢，也非今日刪慰問金明日再恢復，改革只能從制度著手，讓軍公教免於每逢選舉或每逢政客的政治算計就被犧牲，除了政務官，軍公教都是中立於政黨之外的國家文武百官，沒有任何必要奉獻自己的尊嚴陪政客玩操弄民粹的遊戲，不論馬總統或陳院長，忘記明日誰執政，請用心於今日之決策，拍板才能杜爭議。