When, in the early morning hours of July 30, the Taipei City Council passed the "Taipei City Councilor Pension Benefits Plan" which granted pension benefits to City Councilors, they didn't anticipate the jeers that it would call forth from the city's citizens. Facing pressure from public opinion, the bill was repealed. The event once again demonstrates the power of public scorn and proves that "democracy's teacher" is the people. Politicians had better watch their step!

At the end of July, the Taipei City Council passed a set of guidelines on pensions for themselves. According to the guidelines, city councilors who had served two full years would be able to receive a lump-sum pension payment. Those who had served at least a full four-year term could choose to receive a monthly pension of NT$25,000-58,000 for life or could choose to take a lump-sum payment of NT$3.93 million. This law was questioned by some city councilors, and members of the media conducting interviews at the scene pulled out a banner reading "Putting aside the people to fill your own pockets is vile" in protest. After the news hit the papers, many people cursed the councilors.

This bill was suddenly put forward by Chen Chien-chih, speaker of the city council, in the midst of debate on the 1998 budget, and was very quickly passed through its second and third readings. Chen Chien-chih says that pensions are paid to workers in all fields. In order to eliminate their household worries and discourage bribe-taking and manipulation of bidding on public works, city councilors should have pensions also. The speaker used the city council reporters as an example, pointing out that they received pensions. This made the reporters angry, inciting them to pull out the banner and begin to protest. Following this event, the issue of whether or not the media should participate in news events (rather than just reporting on them) became a topic for discussion within the media. But, naturally, the issue of politicians lining their own pockets was still the focus of public outrage.

On August 1, over 200 people called together by groups including the Taiwan Independence Party and The Voice of the People radio station pelted the city council with eggs. They also hung up three pig heads, very obviously indicating the city councilors, and banners reading "Pig councilors, congratulations on striking it big" and "Respectfully submitted to the Pig councilors: The longer you live, the more money you'll receive." In fact, Taipei's city councilors are not the first elected representatives to line their own pockets. In June, the Miaoli County Assembly also approved a retirement package for themselves. It was after this that the Hsinchu and Taipei city councils decided to follow suit. There were also protests in Miaoli County with citizens organizing a "Pig Slaughter" in front of the commission's offices. Besides "slaughtering" the 36 inflatable pigs that they had brought with them, they barbecued pork, indicating their intention to remove the "Pig" councilors from office. They pointed to the councilors use of public funds to line their own pockets instead of helping society's disadvantaged.

Facing such a strong reaction, three days after they passed the proposal, the Taipei City Council sent it back to the city government for review and apologized to the people of the city. Other city and county governments which had already passed similar pension proposals or which were considering doing so, either repealed such proposals or decided to postpone consideration of them.

At the same time, the Taipei City Council reignited the war between itself and the city government by pointing the finger of blame at the city government, claiming that the pension proposal originated with the city government. Speaker Chen Chien-chih said that the council had thought that Mayor Chen Shui-bian, as a former representative of the people, understood how difficult it was to be such a representative and had for that reason suggested the pension proposal. The speaker said they hadn't realized that they were dealing with a wolf in sheep's clothing and that the proposal was an attempt to make them look bad.

Luo Wen-chia, director of the Taipei City Government's Department of Information, says that the city council has been taking advantage of budget discussions to extort the city government for a long time. He cites the annual bonuses, an increase in the allowance that councilors are granted to pay for assistants, and this recent pension proposal as examples. He says that the current uproar provides an opportunity to do something concrete about the degeneration of the city council. Luo's comments indicated that the city government had suggested the plan deliberately to make the city council's wrongdoings apparent to the public.

What was originally simply a case of the city council lining its pockets has become a point of contention between the council and the city government. Councilors such as Chen Hsueh-sheng and Chin Hui-chu, who were opposed to the proposal from the outset, have formed a damage-control group to aid Speaker Chen and to battle against the city government.

The city government was unwilling to surrender. Luo Wen-chia announced that he would reveal information regarding how Speaker Chen had misused his position. In the end, Mayor Chen stopped Luo, and the war between the city council and the city government came to a temporary end.

Should councilors who lose an election or don't stand for re-election be granted pensions? Are there any examples of a reasonable pension system overseas? How much should councilors be paid while they are in office? Based on city and provincial goverment guidelines, city councilors in Taipei and Kaohsiung currently have a monthly income in excess of NT$400,000. This amount includes an NT$240,000 allowance that they receive to cover expenses such as the hiring of assistants, legal research, public service, transportation, and polling, as well as for money to spend to help them understand the public's concerns. Opinions differ as to whether this amount is reasonable. As for pension plans for public representatives, Germany was the first nation to set up such a system. But the conditions for receiving such a pension are stringent. A person must serve a full eight years in office, and even then does not receive a pension until he or she is 65 years of age. For every year of service in excess of those eight, the person may receive their pension one year earlier. The pension may not be taken more than 18 years early. In the US, the pension system for public representatives is also very clearly structured. Perhaps these two approaches are worth Taiwan's consideration.