[ LETTERS ]

After half a century of ties to Taiwan, I still find myself looking at a Taipei streetscape and wishing it were more appealing. Yet if asked whether I would rather live here or in beautifully landscaped Singapore, I would choose Taipei.

I first lived in Taiwan from 1975 to 1977, teaching and studying at what was then Chinese Culture College, now Chinese Culture University. I returned from 1982 to 1984 with Irving Trust Co, later acquired by the Bank of New York. My Taiwan-born wife, Joyce, and I have family and friends here that make returning personal.

I have long admired the work ethic I encountered, the importance people placed on education and family, and their determination to improve their lives. As a banker, I followed Taiwan’s economic development with particular interest. Its democratic transformation has been equally impressive.

However, my fondest memories often involve smaller encounters. People have always been quick to compliment my Mandarin, sometimes generously. However, say a few words in Taiwanese, and the enthusiasm rises another notch. An ordinary transaction becomes a friendly conversation, and a foreigner feels welcome.

The food has also held up remarkably well against memory. Nostalgia can be an unfair restaurant critic, but the rolled egg crepes I bought at a roadside stall near my old college were every bit as good as I remembered.

The urban scenery prompted a more mixed response. Driving toward Keelung to visit Joyce’s brother, I noticed old, weathered housing, densely packed buildings and little greenery between them. Modern high-rises provided occasional relief. Persistent drizzle did the older buildings no favors.

These were impressions of particular stretches, not a verdict on Taiwan. A highway view cannot tell the whole story, nor does a weathered facade reveal how people live inside. Still, I wondered why such extraordinary economic progress had not brought more improvement to everyday urban surroundings.

Housing, jobs and transport understandably took priority during rapid growth. Renewing established neighborhoods is difficult. Yet more attention to older buildings, trees and ordinary streets would make a difference. Taipei has parks and attractive places; I wish more of that care extended along the routes connecting them.

Singapore’s greenery and carefully maintained public spaces deserve admiration, but family, familiarity, wonderful food and the easy friendliness I encounter keep drawing me back to Taipei.

Affection sustained over 50 years leaves room for disappointment. I want Taipei to look more appealing, because I care about it. I would welcome more trees and better-kept buildings, and happily return tomorrow for another rolled egg crepe and a conversation in Mandarin, with a few words of Taiwanese thrown in.

Michael J. Ranieri

Bonita Springs, Florida

Responsible policies needed

On Oct. 16, the opposition-controlled Legislative Yuan passed the third reading of amendments to the Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), which would require the central government to subsidize the National Health Insurance (NHI) premiums for all people age 65 or older who meet specific income eligibility criteria. The policy appears to offer greater support for elderly people, but why expand blanket subsidies rather than prioritize resources for those with a genuine need for assistance?

The Ministry of Health and Welfare estimates that about 4.03 million elderly people across Taiwan would qualify for the subsidies, amounting to an annual cost of about NT$40 billion (US$1.23 billion). Whether funding through NHI resources or central government tax revenues, someone would have to bear the cost. Taiwan faces a declining birthrate and an aging population. The working-age population is gradually shrinking, while healthcare and long-term care expenditures continue to rise.

The income eligibility threshold is the most important issue to reconsider. Does having an income tax rate below 20 percent mean that someone lacks the means to support themselves? Some elderly people own property, have savings and receive a steady retirement income while others struggle to make ends meet. Do these two groups really need the same subsidies? If the government is committed to supporting the disadvantaged, it should take income, assets and actual living needs into account to ensure that limited public funds first go to elderly people facing financial hardship and to young families in need of support.

Older people need security, but younger generations also need a future. Young people must shoulder mortgage payments, the costs of raising children, and various taxes and fees, all while facing an increasingly heavy burden of social spending. It is easy for political parties to win applause by championing welfare policies, but having the courage to explain the long-term funding of these policies is another matter. Supporting older people is a worthy goal, but every welfare policy must take fiscal capacity and intergenerational equity into account. Today’s political gains must not become a bill young people must pay tomorrow.