A Forced Vote on Pension Reform will Sow Seeds of Disaster

A Forced Vote on Pension Reform will Sow Seeds of Disaster
China Times Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) 
A Translation 
June 29, 2016

Executive Summary: Pension reform should be a brightly lit road. Unfortunately when the government established the Pension Reform Committee, it started out on the wrong foot. It resorted to black box operations. It must get back on track. This wrong first step must be corrected. That will require transparency. A forced vote will only intensify and legitimize protests. The new government must not misjudge the situation. It must not cling to power, only to undermine pension reform as a whole.

Full Text Below:

The first meeting of the Presidential Office National Pension Reform Committee has been in haste amid a storm of controversy. Three representatives of military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers blasted the government, then withdrew in protest. They originally planned to deal with “committee procedures" and “committee member ethics”. Neither was dealt with. Pension Reform Committee Deputy Convener and Executive Director Lin Wan-yi previously vowed to step down if he failed to reform the pension system within one year. After the meeting Lin Wan-yi railed, saying that if the committee cannot reach a consensus, he will force a vote. But a forced vote will undermine the legitimacy of pension reform. It will provoke a powerful backlash, and sow the seeds of future disaster. It must be avoided at all costs.

In order to fulfill her campaign promise, Tsai Ing-wen has made pension reform a top priority. For this she deserves affirmation and support. After all, it is essential to consider global economic trends, government debt, and the equitable distribution of national resources. The current pension system does require reform. But such reform involves the vital interests of the people. One must be careful, especially regarding peoples' expectations about workplace insurance mechanisms. Unfortunately, the new government's pension reform program has gotten off on the wrong foot.

At the first meeting of the Pension Reform Committee, President Tsai solemnly enshrined four principles. One of them was "to abide by the principles of democracy, and to ensure transparency". But the very formation of the Pension Reform Committee has already violated Tsai Ing-wen's promise. The entire process was a black box operation. Tsai Ing-wen has already taken the wrong fork in the road.

The new government has released the names of 37 members of the Pension Reform Committee. But how was the composition of the committee determined? What standards were applied to committee members? The government did not say. Nor did it consult the public. Instead, it unilaterally declared that "a consensus has been reached", and laid down the law. For example, the Pension Reform Committee is supposed to include two private citizens. But by what stretch of the imagination are Lee An-ni and Feng Kuang-yuan private citizens? Both are highly controversial people, especially the latter, who constantly attacked dissenters with obscenities. On what basis can these two people be considered representatives of "civil society"? The government owes the people an explanation.

The legislature is an elective body. Legislators' proposals are important. But the Pension Reform Committee includes only one legislator, who is a member of the ruling party. Do the views of opposition party legislators count for nothing? The composition of the committee is designed to weaken the legislature, and shut out opposition parties. Is this because the government has a guilty conscience and afraid to subject committee members to public scrutiny? Or is this because the government is arrogant and indifferent to the diverse views of society?

All of these have undermined the credibility of the Pension Reform Committee. People will inevitably question the fruit of the poisonous tree. Pension reform is a “river of justice” that everyone supports. But it has been polluted at its source by undemocratic black box operations. How can anyone expect clean water downstream?

The composition of the committee was not the product of the democratic process. A forced vote will only undermine public trust with its pretense of democracy. It will not solve any problems. It will only exacerbate them.

Secondly, the government knows full well that pension reform is a subtractive process. It reduces the number of golden eggs distributed, in order to avoid killing the goose that lays them. The nation's finances are on the edge of a precipice. Long term growth rates will remain low. Reform is urgent. The subtractive process will harm military personnel, civil servants, public school teachers, and others. It will undermine trust in the the government. After all, the government promised retirement benefits. That was why many military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers chose their occupations in the first place. How will the number of eggs be cut? This requires fairness. Military personnel, civil servants, public school teachers, labor, and farmers. Whose eggs will be cut the most? Establishing objective criteria will be difficult. Ignoring the differences in these occupations and cutting all equally, runs the risk of comparing apples to oranges.

Therefore Pension Reform Committee Executive Director Lin Wan-yi must not casually drop word of forced votes. Such talk only adds fuel to the fire, and undermines reform. Lin Wan-yi must do what Tsai Ying-wen promised to do: "communicate, communicate, communicate". Military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers accused the government of demonizing them. Lin Wan-yi, not to be outdone, lashed back, saying "Since military personnel, civil servants, and public school teachers don't want others to demonize them, they should not demonize others!” This was beneath the Pension Reform Committee Executive Director, who ought to remain detached and generous in spirit. Instead, he fanned the flames of conflict and undermined the government's efforts to communicate.

Pension reform has a high degree of public support. In March "This Week" magazine polled legislators. As many as 84% of all legislators, regardless of party affiliation, favored pension reform. This echoed the support for pension reform among the general public in the previous poll, which held at 70%. The support of the public is the new government's most valuable asset. It should have more confidence in itself. It should allow all parties to debate the issue, and not behave in a dictatorial manner.

Pension reform should be a brightly lit road. Unfortunately when the government established the Pension Reform Committee, it started out on the wrong foot. It resorted to black box operations. It must get back on track. This wrong first step must be corrected. That will require transparency. A forced vote will only intensify and legitimize protests. The new government must not misjudge the situation. It must not cling to power, only to undermine pension reform as a whole.

強行表決年金改革 埋下禍根
2016年06月29日 中國時報

總統府國家年金改革委員會召開第1次會議，火爆中草草結束，3位軍公教代表炮火四射，並退席抗議，原來規畫要處理的「議事規則」、「委員倫理」均未完成。會後曾宣稱「年金改革1年做不到就下台」的年金改革委員會副召集人兼執行長林萬億強勢喊話，若爭論難以取得共識，就要訴諸表決。但我們要提醒新政府，強勢表決不僅會傷及年金改革的正當性，更會引發強烈的反作用力，種下未來激化抗爭的禍源，萬萬不可。

蔡英文總統為實踐競選諾言，把年金改革視為重中之重，這一點應予肯定支持，畢竟全局考慮未來經濟發展趨勢、政府財政負擔及國家資源公平配置等大方向，現行年金制度確有改革必要。但改革涉及全民的切身利益，尤其要改變每一個國民在投入職場加入保險機制時對未來的預期，當然必須謹慎。遺憾的是，新政府年金改革的第一哩路已邁錯了步伐。

蔡總統在年金改革委員會第1次會議時鄭重揭櫫了4原則，其中之一就是：「做到民主原則及資訊透明公開。」然而，年金改革委員會的組成，就先違反了蔡英文宣示的「民主、透明」原則，遭到「黑箱委員會」的質疑，已走上叉路。

新政府公布的37位年金改革委員，分配比例的準據何在？選任委員的標準是什麼？政府未說明，也未經社會討論，就片面以「朕意已決」姿態率爾決定。舉例而言，年金改革委員會設計了2位公民社會代表：李安妮與馮光遠，這2位不但看不出任何「公民社會」的代表性，甚至還帶有爭議性，尤其後者，頻頻以不堪言辭攻訐不同立場者，極具爭議性。憑什麼這2人能代表「公民社會」？政府欠人民一個交待。

國會是民意的代理機關，立法委員的主張非常重要，但在年金改革委員會中只有一位立委代表，而且是執政黨籍，其他在野黨的意見難道不重要嗎？在成員設計上就弱化國會、排斥在野黨，這是不敢接受檢驗的心虛，還是不在意社會多元意見的傲慢？

凡此種種，都傷害了年金改革委員會組成的公信力。就如一顆有毒的樹，會讓人質疑長出的也將是有毒的果子。即便年金改革是一條眾人齊盼的正義之河，但在這河的源頭就被不民主、不透明的黑箱汙染，又如何期盼下游的水清淨可飲？

也正因為委員會組成本身就不是透過民主程序產生的，強勢表決註定只是一個沒有公信、虛矯的假民主。不但不能解決問題，反而會激化問題。

其次，政府當知，年金改革本質上是減法改革，要減少大家原來可以分到的雞蛋，以避免國家財政的金雞母被搾乾。國家財政已在險崖的邊緣，預期未來經濟成長率將長期低迷，改革確實迫在眉睫。但這種減法改革，一則會傷及軍公教等「被改革者」的信賴利益，有違反政府誠信的疑慮，畢竟許多政府原先承諾的退休保障，是當初這些軍公教人員之所以選擇軍公教的考慮因素。二則，雞蛋要怎麼減，涉及的是公平性，軍公教勞農，誰的雞蛋要減多一點？難有客觀標準，若忽略職業不同的屬性，採取齊頭式平等的方式硬砍，則又有陷入拿香蕉比柳丁的錯誤比較之虞。

因此，霸王硬上弓式的強勢表決，身為年金改革委員會執行長的林萬億，實不應輕率地懸之於口，那只會埋下更大的衝突火種，反不利改革的推動進行。林萬億真的該做的，就是蔡英文的名言「溝通、溝通、再溝通」，不能當軍公教團體質疑政府為了年金改革「汙名化軍公教」時，林萬億就不甘示弱地反嗆「既然反對軍公教被汙名化，自己也不要把別人汙名化。」這有失年金改革委員會執行長應有的超然大度，更把自己推上衝突火線，損及政府在改革中的溝通能量。

社會對推動年金改革存在高度共識，《今週刊》在3月對立法委員進行具名調查，不分黨派84%的立委贊成年金改革；反映在歷次民調上支持年金改革的民眾，也多保持在7成以上的水位。擁有民意的支持，這是新政府推動年金改革的最大資本。新政府本應更有信心，讓各方意見充分論辯，以民意決斷是非，來協助推動年金改革，不必也不應獨斷獨行。

年金改革，本應是一條陽光大道，但政府在年金改革委員會的組成上，走了黑箱的錯誤第一步，一步錯，不要步步錯，這黑箱的錯誤，只能以陽光式的開放溝通來修補。強勢表決只會激化甚至正當化抗爭，新政府切莫誤判，呷緊弄破碗，反害了年金改革的大局。