Politicians, Stop Using Elderly Farmers as Election Fodder

Politicians, Stop Using Elderly Farmers as Election Fodder
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 21, 2011

Summary: Each time an election rolls around, politicians reenact the same old charade. They demagogue the issue of subsidies for elderly farmers. This time however, the KMT refused to take part in the bidding war. Instead, it proposed indexing subsidies for elderly farmers to consumer prices. It sought an alternative to the annual mudslinging. But Green Camp legislators, joined by some Blue Camp legislators, remain committed to subsidies for elderly farmers. They oppose any such change. As a result, reformers still face a tough battle in the legislature.

Full Text Below:

Each time an election rolls around, politicians reenact the same old charade. They demagogue the issue of subsidies for elderly farmers. This time however, the KMT refused to take part in the bidding war. Instead, it proposed indexing subsidies for elderly farmers to consumer prices. It sought an alternative to the annual mudslinging. But Green Camp legislators, joined by some Blue Camp legislators, remain committed to subsidies for elderly farmers. They oppose any such change. As a result, reformers still face a tough battle in the legislature.

From a purely strategic perspective, this move by the ruling KMT was unwise. One. Elections are at hand. The DPP will surely seize the opportunity to accuse the Ma administration of "demeaning farmers." This charge alone will be enough to give the Ma administration indigestion. Two. Farmers assumed their subsidies would be increased by several thousand dollars. Now they are being increased by only 300 dollars. Their expectations have been shattered. They are certain to be disgruntled. Three. The Executive Yuan proposal excludes wealthy farmers, non-agricultural income, and new farmers who own 50 million dollars or more in real estate. The higher eligibility threshold is not going to win any votes among new elderly farmers. Four. Internal dissent within the Blue Camp has been endless. A powerful backlash among legislators from southern Taiwan agricultural counties is making policy decisions particularly difficult.

The pressure has been overwhelming. But for that very reason, the Ma administration was able to set aside "winning is everything" thinking. It was able to consider the plight of every disadvantaged group within society. It was able to devise a rational system for increasing subsidies. The decision-making process was not easy. By contrast, when Tsai Ing-wen was in office, she threatened to engage in "tax resistance" against subsidies for elderly farmers. But now she is in the opposition. Now she resorts to underhanded tactics to sabotage her political opponent. Now she has no qualms about damaging the nation's fiscal health. This reveals her opportunism and her lack of principles. The DPP's strategy is to raise a hue and cry over subsidies for elderly farmers every four years. Elderly farmers have become political pawns for demagogues seeking political office. Who really cares about their dignity?

Consider the new system. Some elderly farmers understand the issues. They feel that having subsidies indexed to consumer prices is fair and reasonable. They support the exclusion of wealthy farmers. But other elderly farmers have angrily denounced the new system. They say civil service salaries have increased by several thousand dollars, whereas subsidies for elderly farmers have increased by only 300 dollars. They say the gap between the two is too wide. But these elderly farmers do not understand the difference between subsidies and salaries. They do not understand that subsidies are government-issued social welfare. Salaries, on the other hand, are payment for work performed by civil servants. The two are completely different. They cannot be compared. Long term vilification by politicians has persuaded many farmers that civil servants and teachers are a privileged elite. In fact, what right does Kunbinbo (Uncle Kun-bin) have to complain about civil servants and teachers?

Elderly farmers complain that they earn less than civil servants and teachers. But compared to other disadvantaged groups, they enjoy far more visibility and have receive far more attention. Over the past decade, subsidies for elderly farmers have been increased three times, once during each election. The total amount of subsidies has doubled. By contrast, other subsidies for low-income households have been neglected, because no one speaks on their behalf. This is another sort of social injustice. This is why the KMT increased subsidies for eight other disadvantaged groups when it increased subsidies for elderly farmers. It indexed subsidy increases to rising consumer prices. This is not merely more reasonable. It is also more just. Elderly farmers complain that their subsidy increases have been too meager. But how many elderly people are even poorer? How many of them envy the elderly farmers' good fortune?

Subsidies for elderly farmers has long been a political football for the ruling KMT and opposition DPP. Observers assumed the current presidential race would degenerate into the usual bidding war. They assumed the Blue Camp would join the Green Camp in sacrificing the nation's fiscal health. They assumed the KMT would join the DPP in writing blank checks to buy votes. But to everyone's surprise, the Ma administration resolved to break this vicious cycle. It refused to go along with the DPP. It refused to engage in a bidding war. It refused to wave a magic wand. Instead it considered the need for fairness. It considered the need for fiscal accountability. It devised a convincing system for indexing subsidy increases. The Ma administration's decision has enabled other disadvantaged segments of society to share in the social welfare pie. Most importantly, it has broken the vicious cycle. It has put an end to the politicians' bidding war. Political opportunists can no longer use elderly farmers to advance their political agenda.

If democracy on Taiwan is to progress, someone must stand up. Someone must point to the things that are wrong and say, "Enough!" Elderly farmers have worked hard their entire lives. The state should provide them with a reasonable safety net. But it should not give them money and be done with it. It should not think of them only every four years. It should not think only of buying their votes. Over the past decade, the issue of subsidies for elderly farmers has been like a phantom. It has appeared and reappeared during each election. It has been a projection of our social tragedy. Every election season, it has been the DPP's ATM machine. Only when people tire of the charade, will they consent to its systematization. The best solution is for Blue and Green Camp politicians to stop making elderly farmers their poster child.

Some have ridiculed the Executive Yuan's proposal as deceptive, as "one fish, prepared three ways." They accuse the Executive Yuan of trying to be all things to all people. But first, the Executive Yuan's proposal hardly pleases elderly farmers. Second, it runs the risk of inviting an internal backlash, leading to unfavorable election results. How can it possibly be considered "one fish, prepared three ways?" The important thing is that the Ma administration Insists on doing the right thing, And by doing the right thing, it has enabled the people to see the ruling administration's sincerity and wisdom. This is a true "blue ocean strategy."

The systematization of subsidies for elderly farmers is a courageous, wise, and just move. It deserves the public's support.

政客勿再挾老農為選舉人質
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.10.21

每逢大選必上演的津貼加碼大戲，這次國民黨揚棄了跟進喊價的戰法，另行開闢了「隨物價調整」的制度化路線，為連年糾纏不休的泥巴戰打開一條新思路。然而，在綠營和藍營老農派立委的共同反對下，此案在立法院仍有一場硬戰要打。

若純粹從戰略利益估量，執政黨此舉，恐怕難稱明智。原因是：第一，選舉在即，民進黨趁機指控馬政府以賤價「侮辱老農」，這項罪名就夠馬政府吃不完兜著走；第二，農民原本預期津貼調升千元，如今卻僅調三百多元，期待落空，勢必心生不滿；第三，政院版本更增列「排富條款」，將非農業所得在五十萬元以上或擁有房產五百萬元以上的新進富農排除在外；新門檻阻擋一批新老農的領取資格，當然不利吸票。第四，藍營內部亦雜音連連，尤其南部農業縣市立委反彈強烈，更增決策困擾。

但也正因為壓力罩頂，馬政府能拋開「選票第一」的思維，考量各類不同弱勢民眾的狀況，整合出一個制度化的津貼調整機制，更凸顯其決策之不易。對比之下，蔡英文執政時揚言以「抗稅」抵制老農津貼，如今在野卻不惜採取不入流的戰術來干擾對手、侵蝕財政，反映其投機與缺乏原則。在民進黨的戰略中，四年一度的津貼喊價，老農其實已被政客當成選舉人質，誰真的關心他們的尊嚴？

對於新機制，比較理解的老農認為，隨物價調升「有公道」，也支持要「排富」。但也有老農怒稱，公務員調高薪資幾千元，老農才調三百多，「差天甲地」。老農分不清「津貼」和「薪資」的差異，無可厚非；但「津貼」是政府發放的社會福利，而「薪資」是公務員的工作所得，兩者性質完全不同，不能相提並論。若不是政治人物長期醜化，將「公教人員」塑造成農民待遇的「反差」，像崑濱伯這樣的樸實農民怎會對公教懷有那麼多怨懟？

再說，雖然「老農」自怨待遇不如「公教」，但比起其他身分的弱勢群體，其能見度和關注度其實已遙遙領先。過去十年，老農津貼三度選舉加碼，已經翻了一倍。相形之下，其他各類低收入戶的補助，卻因無人代他們發聲而受到忽視，這是另一種社會不公。正因為如此，這次國民黨在調整老農津貼時，也將另八類弱勢社福補助一併納入，規定皆依物價指數調整；這不僅更具正當性，也更符合公平正義原則。當老農在怨嘆加碼太少時，有不少更貧困的老人卻羨慕著他們的「好命」，不是嗎？

這次老農津貼議題進入朝野角力清單時，外界原以為將一如以往演成加碼大賽，藍綠均將不惜以國庫為代價，大開選舉支票。令人意外的是，馬政府這次決心要擺脫惡性下沉漩渦，不僅未隨民進黨喊價的魔棒起舞，還在兼顧公平精神及國庫收支的前提下，設計出一套具有說服力的調整機制。馬政府這項決策，除了讓更多弱勢民眾分享社福大餅，最大的意義是打破「政客叫價」的惡質風氣，讓政治投機客無法再假藉老農名義遂行個人政治目的。

台灣的民主要再進化，就要有人站出來向不對的事說：「夠了！」老農勤苦一生，國家應該提供他們合理的生活照護，但這不應該只是發錢了事、不是每四年才想到他們一次，更不該只是為了他們的選票。十幾年來，老農津貼的問題像幽靈一樣，如影隨形地浮現在台灣每一場選舉的天空，既像是社會的悲情投影機，更像是民進黨的選舉提款機。當民眾早已看膩了這樣的老戲，讓它回歸制度化，是最好的解決，藍綠政治人物也請停止再綁架老農。

有人譏政院版的津貼案妄想「一魚三吃」，其實，這首先就討好不了老農，二則要冒內部反彈及選舉不利的風險，如何奢想三吃？重要的是，堅持做對的事，讓民眾感受到執政者的誠意和智慧，那才是真正的藍海策略。

這次老農津貼制度化方案，跨出了勇敢、明智、正當的一大步，值得肯定。