Pension Reform: Equal Wealth, not Equal Poverty

Pension Reform: Equal Wealth, not Equal Poverty
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 29, 2013

Summary: The government is about to announce its pension reform plan. Debate has centered on salaries and benefits for retired civil servants. It has centered on how they can be made equal with those of most of the work force. It has had an poweful emotional effect on 800,000 civil servants. The backlash is felt everywhere. It has enabled DPP legislators to propose amending the law. The situation is complex. Any reform faces a high degree of difficulty. Reforms might do much harm before they do much good.

Full text below:

The government is about to announce its pension reform plan. Debate has centered on salaries and benefits for retired civil servants. It has centered on how they can be made equal with those of most of the work force. It has had an poweful emotional effect on 800,000 civil servants. The backlash is felt everywhere. It has enabled DPP legislators to propose amending the law. The situation is complex. Any reform faces a high degree of difficulty. Reforms might do much harm before they do much good.

In any discussion of pension reform, a few points must first be made clear. First of all, fiscal constraints are all too real. This phenomenon is not unique to the ROC. Governments the world over are cutting back on expenditures. The fiscal burden is not limited to civil service pensions. It also includes labour. If the problem remains unresolved, the burden will inevitably fall on the shoulders of the next generation. Pension reform affects generational justice. Laborers are not the only ones who have offspring. So do civil servants. This is something our generation must confront.

Secondly, pension reform for labor could lead to bankruptcies. This could include excessively high public sector retirement benefits and welfare. This could lead to conflicts between the government and the public. But public officials and private citizens have always been separate groups. One may try, but one can never make them completely the same. Private enterprise valiues results. Its evaluations are harsh. Performance levels are clearly reflected in income levels. Labor exploits any opportunity to demand high pay. But labor also risk being laid off or dismissed for poor performance. Civil servants are in a different boat altogether. No matter how hard they work, their salaries and benefits are fixed according to the system. Their annual salaries increase according to seniority. They do not receive annual bonuses. No matter how effective their department's performance might be, they will not receive bonuses. These life choices are made the moment one enters the workplace. During the course of one's career, one has many opportunities to change occupations. Whether one changes occupations depends on one's personal choices, personal values, and personal ambitions. As a civil servant, one must be psychologically prepared to do a good job even if one has job security and no chance to strike it rich. Making money should not be a priority for civil servants.

Thirdly, civil servants receive a preferential 18% interest rate on their savings. This has remained controversial for many years, and has undergone several adjustments. Those who entered the civil service after 1992 do not qualify for the special 18% interest rate. Their benefits have been reduced. Yet they remain targets during the current pension reforms. The reason why is simple. When the preferential 18% interest rate was set years ago, bank interest rates were 12% to 13%. Today bank interest rates have fallen sharply, to a mere 2% to 3%. This is clearly inconsistent with market level interest rates. Civil servants who chose early retirement have already benefitted from the 18% interest rate. They have already received ten to twenty years of preferential interest. They have not been mistreated by the government. Others retired late. Some retired after 1978. Taiwan's economy was then making a quantum leap. By then, civil service pay levels were already caught up with those in the private sector. Current salaries in the public sector are about the same as those in the private sector. Therefore there is no need to retain the 18% interest rate. Why make civil servants suffer such long-term humiliation?

To be fair, ROC civil servants are required to pass national exams before being hired. The standards are comparable to those in advanced countries. This is especially true for the Department of Household Registration and the Department of Civil Affairs. These civil servants stand on the front lines. They deal with the public. They are trained to be cordial and patient. Now consider the matter from another perspective. What's the difference between the civil service and private enterprise? In the civil service, the employer is the government. The government is the manager authorized by the public. In short, the boss of the civil service is every tax-paying citizen. In any agency, their job is to serve the people. Those who lack a sense of mission serving the public, cannot be good public servants. Consider government administration from the perspective of corporate governance. When government revenue shrinks, how can one make government sustainable? This is the shared responsibility of every civil servant. So why has pension reform provoked such a backlash?

Outgoing CLA Comprehensive Planning Director Lee Lai-hsi is being removed as manager. His labor pension reform called for employers to increase their contribution from six percent to eight percent. This may improve the labor retirement income replacement rate. So why is it necessary to cut civil service pensions? He also appealed to civil servants. "Raise your pens, use your keyboards, get the message out, show your strength." Lee Lai-hsi's removal suggests that he is being punished for criticizing his superiors. CLA chairman Pan Shi-wei tried to explain this away. Pan said. "Lee Lai-hsi's was a director. He was made an advisor. His salary is the same. How is this punishment?" Lee Lai-hsi's advocacy on behalf of civil servants is worth considering. Isn't the Council of Labor Affairs (CLA) supposed to serve labor? Isn't it supposed to negotiate labor disputes. Isn't it supposed to put labor interests first? Government is a unified entity. The pension program controversy has just begun. Those responsible for labor matters must not allow themselves to descend into total chaos.

The CLA is responsible for civil servants from the central to local government level. Civil servants must be clear in their understanding of the situation. They must be resolute in their purpose. Making money is a laudable goal in life, but not for civil servants. Once one enters public service, the most one can expect to enjoy is adequate safeguards and a modicum of security. One may feel a sense of accomplishment, but it will never be the result of personal achievements. They will be the result of serving the people as a whole. They will be the result of giving the people the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of their labor. The vast majority of civil servants, including Lee Lai-hsi, will be happy if most laborers are happy. The purpsoe of pension reform is equal wealth, not equal poverty. The people will respect and appreciate civil servants willing to sacrifice their own vested interests.

年金改革追求的是富而均 非均而貧
    2013-01-29
    中國時報

　年金改革方案即將正式出爐，然而，多數討論集中於退休公務員的待遇福利，如何與廣大的勞工盡可能拉平，讓八十萬公務員處於近乎集體情緒挫折狀態之中，反彈聲四起，讓執政黨立委紛紛醞釀提出不同的修法版本，情勢之複雜，已可預見改革難度之高，將讓改革未蒙其利先受其害。

　年金改革的討論中，有幾個觀點必須釐清，第一，國家財政拮据是不爭的事實，而且，這個現象不僅台灣獨有，全球各國政府都在精簡支出，財政的負荷不僅在於公務員的年金，包括勞工亦然，如果不解決，包袱勢必遞延到下一代，年金改革攸關世代正義，不只勞工有下一代，公務員也有下一代，這是我們這一代人必須正視的課題。

　第二，年金改革從勞保可能破產延伸到公部門退休待遇福利過高，隱隱有政府、民間相抗之勢，然而，官、民本來就是兩個系統，盡量拉平但不可能完全齊平，民間企業講究業績，考核銳利，績效高低反映在薪給落差極大，勞工有機會因為認真有戰功而暴得高薪，也有風險因為績效不彰而遭資遣或解雇；公務員則不然，再忠勤任事者，其薪給福利還是得照制度走，年度能加薪依年資順加，年度不能加薪則部門再有績效都不能獨加，人生在踏出職場的第一步時就做了抉擇，過程中有許多機會轉職，轉與不轉間自有個人對人生價值與志向的選擇。既為公務員，就要做好一輩子固有保障卻發不了大財的心理準備；賺錢，應該不是公務員的選項。

　第三，公務員退休十八％優惠存款，在爭議多年並經幾次調整後，凡民國八十四年以後進入公部門的公務員、以及之後的年資都不計入十八％的適用範圍，相對過去已經縮減許多，還是在這一波年金改革中成為箭靶子，何以致此？理由很簡單，當年訂出十八％優存利率時，銀行利率還有十二到十三％，如今銀行利率大幅下滑到只剩下一.二或一.三％，顯然不符合利率市場所謂的公平。對已退休享受過十八％的公務員而言，早退者已經享受過十幾、廿多年的優惠存款，就政府的照顧而言，不能再說有所虧待，晚退者特別是民國七十多年之後台灣經濟大幅躍升，公務員薪給水準已經跟上民間部門，至於現任公務員的薪給待遇甚至比一般民間企業也不差，又何須強留十八％，讓公務員的尊嚴長期遭此羞辱？

　持平而論，台灣公務員都得經過國家考試晉用，水準相對於先進國家一點都不差，尤其戶政、民政等第一線與民眾接觸的基層公務員，都得練就親切隨和耐煩的本事，但換一個角度想，公務員為什麼和一般民間企業不同？公務員的雇主是政府，政府是人民授權的管理單位，質言之，公務員的老闆是每一位納稅公民，不論在任何單位，其工作就是服務人民，沒有服務人民的使命感，就不可能做一個好的公僕。從企業治理看政府管理，當政府稅收拮据之際，如何讓政府永續經營，就是每一位公務員共同的責任，那麼又何須對年金改革反彈至此？

　原任勞委會綜合規畫處長的李來希，傳出將調離主管職，他為年金改革發聲主張只要將勞退新制的雇主提撥率由現行六％提高到八％，就可能提高勞工退休的所得替代率，何須調降公務員退休年金？他更呼籲公務員「提起你的筆，用你的鍵盤，把訊息傳遞出去，展現力量…。」李來希的調動被聯想為因嗆高層而遭打壓，勞委會主委潘世偉嚴正澄清，「李來希從處長調參事，薪水、（主管）加給都沒少，這叫打壓嗎？」李來希為公務員發聲，值得深思，然而，勞委會不是該以服務勞工、協調勞資以為勞工爭權益為先嗎？政府一體，年金方案才冒出一點頭，勞工主管部門不能自己先亂了套。

　從勞委會擴及政府中央到地方各部門的公務員們都要有正確的認知、堅強的心志，人生可以賺錢牟利為目的，但不是公務員，既入公門，能享受的頂多是足夠的保障，追求現世安妥，而其成就感的來源不單是個人的成功，而是服務最大多數人，讓人民有最多機會享受成功的果實；相信包括李來希在內的絕大多數公務員，都會以看到廣大勞工的笑容為樂。年金改革追求的是富而均，而非均而貧，相信全民也會向所有願意犧牲些微既有利益的公務員致上敬意和謝意。