行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫
□期中進
度 報 告
年金法制核心問題之研究(精簡版)
計畫類別：□ 個別型計畫
計畫編號：NSC
96－2414－H－O－04－013－MY3
執行期間：96 年 08 月 01 日至
99 年 07 月 31 日
計畫主持人： 郭明政
共同主持人：
計畫參與人員： 陳怡君
高思齊
成果報告類型(依經費核定清單規定繳交)：□精簡報告
處理方式：除產學合作研究計畫、提升產業技術及人才培育研究
計畫、列管計畫及下列情形者外，得立即公開查詢
執行單位：國立政治大學
中
華
民
國
97
年
5
月
31
日
一、研究主題與動機 依政府之計畫，勞保年金制度將於 2007 年完成立法並付諸實施。若此 一計畫得以實現，將是繼全民健保之後最為龐大的社會工程。其對於國計民生， 尤其勞工福祉之促進，將有關鍵性的影響。基於實務之需求或學術之深化，皆有 必要針對迄今仍未深入討論的核心問題進行深度研究，其包括：1、老年、殘廢 與遺屬的定義與要件；2、退休者、失能者與遺屬的勞動促進，尤其是失能者復 健與職業重建；婦女、家庭與年金制度（包括養育年資及離婚者的年金分化等問 題）。 關於此等議題之研究，本人自去年研究計畫開始迄今已撰寫完成三篇相 關著作。首先於勞保年金方面，2007 年九月於臺灣勞工雙月刊發表「國民年金 與勞動年金--國民年金法制訂後勞動年金法案應有的配套與修正措施」一文；其 次，今年年初發表於德國的學術論文「亞洲國家的殘障福利基礎」（The
Foundation of Disabled Welfare Policy in Asia: Focusing on China and Taiwan），依次檢視臺灣、中國殘障福利實施情況，與政策上的探討；此外，尚 有法務部委託研究之「離婚配偶對原配偶老年給付之剩餘財產請求權－社會保險 之老年給付以及勞工、軍公教人員退休金作為剩餘財產請求權相關問題及立法芻 議之探討」專題報告，請見附件之文。至於與此等議題相關之國際研討會刻正籌 劃進行中，目前已計畫邀集德國 Max Planck 研究院外國暨國際社會法研究所所 長 Prof. Ulrich Becker，以及中國人民大學殘疾人事業發展研究院院長鄭功 成，於十月中旬「歐亞年金改革國際研討會」進行相關議題之探討與交流。 就老年的重新定義而言，各國已紛紛採取延長退休年齡、部分退休制等 措施。由此可知，老年是「相對」的定義，而非僅以特定的年齡來界定；老年應 是「不確定的概念」，將隨社會變遷、文化發展而變動。更進一步，可將老年視 為一種「社會程序」，此一認定對現代年金改革的意義實至為重大。許麗君、蔡 文輝所著【老年社會學；理論與實務】一書將「老年」概念區分為心理層面、文 化層面之老年，亦不拘泥於絕對之年齡。則「法律層面之老年」又有何種意義？ 法律上的老年，依現行法律條文「年滿六十歲以上者，…得請領月退休金。」「勞 工有左列情形之一者，得自請退休：一、…年滿五十五歲者。」「勞工非有下列 情形之一，雇主不得強制其退休：一、年滿六十五歲者。」規定，僅僅是「數字 化的老年」，依據此種老年定義方式，才會出現「人口老化」之概念。然而此一 人口老化定義，僅具少部分參考價值，若制度面未作檢討，則被認定為「老年」 的人口將只有不斷增加一途。 實際上就「生理」上的老年，即經濟層面的老年而言，因現代人營養充 足、醫學發達、平均壽命延長，加上現代職業在工作上的需求，並不以大量消耗
體能為必要，因此生理上的老年早已逐漸向後延長。除此之外，人口不僅未有老 化，反而呈現「年輕化」的現象。因老年既為相對概念，依上述體能條件優渥、 環境要求減低之情況，生理上的老年也將隨平均餘命的延長而延後發生，則過去 在法律上被認定為「老年」之人口，與實際「生理上老年」相比之下，反而越顯 年輕。針對此點或將發生的問題是，老年勞工與年輕勞工的「代間戰爭」。於代 間契約概念下，老年勞工要求提高退休金給付的同時，年輕勞工卻希望調降保費 支出。就此，現行法律上對老年之定義絕對有重新思考的必要。 其次就殘廢的重新定義方面，依照德國制度，原本「職業不能」之定義 應與廢氣並改採「就業不能」。勞工一旦因職業災害或其他原因而造成殘廢之結 果，若其從事原本職業已然不可期待，則不應就此放棄其給付勞務之可能，而使 得此殘廢勞工從此退出勞動市場。就此，不論勞工遭遇何種程度之殘廢，都應以 「工作之期待可能」來重新定位其勞動力，配合實施復建，或職業重建措施使得 殘廢勞工重新在就業市場上找到合適工作。另一方面，若採取「復建優先」的概 念，則現行法對於「重度殘障」的定義也將愈趨嚴格。 最後，關於遺屬的重新定義，參照當前各國制度，也是著重於強調遺屬 的就業可能性，亦即，遺屬的「工作期待可能」。具遺屬身分者若為未成年人， 仍有扶養照顧之必要，當然得以領取遺屬相關給付；然而，若遺屬已然成年，除 給予短期津貼外，尚應予以職業訓練之措施。針對此一問題，相關之大法官會議 解釋釋字第五四九號解釋提出，被保險人死亡，其遺屬所得領取之津貼，性質上 係所得替代，用以避免遺屬生活無依，故應以遺屬需受扶養為基礎，自有別於依 法所得繼承之遺產。並以貫徹國家負生存照顧義務之憲法意旨，兼顧養子女及其 他遺屬確受被保險人生前扶養暨無謀生能力之事實為由，宣告勞工保險條例拒絕 對養子女給予保險給付之規定應予修正，惟目前立法仍未貫徹釋字第五四九號之 解釋意旨。綜上所述，年金給付不以金錢為限，復建亦同。則受實際扶養之未成 年人或成年之遺屬，都應貫徹「工作期待可能」之概念。 二、附件 附件一：
The Foundation of Disabled Welfare Policy in Asia: Focusing on China and Taiwan*
Ming-Cheng Kuo
Professor, College of Law, National Chengchi University, Taiwan Dean, School of Humanities and Social Science, Kainan University, Taiwan
1. Foreword
2. Comparison of Disabled Welfare Policy in Taiwan and China
2.1. The Basic Social Provision for Public Health Care, House and Food etc. 2.2. Social Insurance
2.3. Welfare Services and Allowances 2.4. Enterprises Welfare
2.5. The Third Sector 2.6. Preliminary Conclusion
3. Foundation of Disabled Welfare Policy in China and Taiwan 3.1. Introduction
3.2. Cultural foundation
3.3. The International foundation 3.4. Academic Foundation 4. Concluding Remarks
1. Foreword
There are significant differences between Asian countries in terms of culture, economic development, and political systems. Culturally speaking, there exist huge differences among Asian countries, particularly between West Asia, East Asia and South Asia. The economies of the different Asian countries are also at various stages of development. In East Asia, for example, there is an advanced industrialized country like Japan, newly-industrialized countries like Korea and Taiwan, as well as developing countries like China and Vietnam. In terms of political systems, China and Vietnam are no longer the socialist countries they were in the past due to various reforms. China now proclaims itself as having a socialist market economy in which it stillretainsaspectsofa socialistpoliticaland economicsystem. China’ssocialist market economy differs greatly from the market economy in Japan, Korea and Taiwan.
The huge differences between Asian countries make it a highly difficult task to discuss the foundation of disabled welfare in all of the Asian countries. Therefore, in this paper, the focus is on East Asia, particularly China and Taiwan. It seems undeniable that Taiwan falls within the realm of Chinese culture although the type of political relationship that should exist between Taiwan and China has been a very controversial issue. Among the roughly 23 millions inhabitants in Taiwan, some 97% are descendents of immigrants from China, 2% are indigenous people, and 1% are migratory workers. The languages commonly used in Taiwan are the same as in China, with Mandarin being the most prominent. Most of the people in Taiwan believe in Taoism or Buddhism in the forms originating from China. The Nationalist Party (Kuomintang, hereafter referred to as the KMT), which ruled Taiwan from 1949 to 2000, is the remnant of the same party that previously ruled in China and the KMT regards itself as a defender of Chinese culture. It could thus be said there is much common ground between Taiwan and China, especially in culture. They are also very diverse societies in many ways.
First of all, Taiwan is an immigrant society formed by immigrants from China over 400 years ago who took with them the cultural artifacts of Chinese society. However, the current cultural traits of China differ from traditional Chinese culture as a result of the revolution led by the Chinese Communist party with their Marxist-Leninist and Maoist ideologies.
due to the fact that they have had different political systems and rulers. Taiwan was ruled by Japan from 1895 to 1945. Both Taiwan and China were ruled by the KMT after 1945. The Chinese Communist party then took power in China while the KMT continued in power in Taiwan. Political relations have frequently been hostile between China and Taiwan over the intervening years. At the same time, the economic system and economic development in Taiwan and China have followed different paths.
Despite the large differences between Taiwan and China; nevertheless, there is still much common ground that can be found. For one thing, both sides had authoritarian regimes ruled by a strongman until the 1970s and 80s. Discernible reforms appeared on both sides after the death of Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong though the focus of reforms for both sides was different. While Taiwan’s reforms focused on politics, China’s reforms focused mainly on the economy. It should be noted that the level of economic development of both sides has become closer and closer. There has been extensive investment from Taiwan into China and there are increasing amounts of Taiwanese working there. Consequently, the level of interaction between Taiwan and China has dramatically increased and the differences between the both sides have quickly decreased.
Having so much common ground, but also having lots of diversity, Taiwan and China provide an excellent sample for cultural, economic and political research. It would certainly be worthwhile to extend the sample to Hong Kong and Singapore and even to include a comparison of Korea, Japan, and Southeast Asian countries at the same time. However, due to time constraints, this report will focus only on Taiwan and China.
In order to finish this report, I not only referred to the materials used in the conferences held in Speyer and Berlin1 and the Workshop on Social Security on Social Security in the PRC held by Das Instititut für Asienkunde in Hamburg2, but I also headed for Beijing to pay a research visit before attending this conference. During my stay in Beijing, I had several meetings with Professor Zheng Gongcheng, Professor Lin Jia, Professor Yang Tuan and Professor Liu Chueixiao from which I benefited greatly. I hereby express my gratitude for their assistance.
1 Ming-Cheng Kuo,„Taiwan“,in:Pitschas/von Mqydell/Schulte(Hrsg.),Teilhabebehinderter
Menschen an der Bürgergesellschaft in Asien und Europa –Eingliederung im Sozial- und Rechtsvergleich, 2002, 185-191; ders., Status quo and Perspectiven des Rechts und der Politik für Menschen mit Behinderung: Taiwan, in: von Maydell-Pitschas-Schulte (Hrsg), Behinderung in Asian und Europa im Politik- und Rechtsvergleich, 2003, 277-293.
2
Social Change and Social Security in Taiwan: Lessons for the PRC, in: Krieg/Schädler (Hrsg.), Social Security in the People´s Republic of China, 1994, 340-365.,
2. Comparison of Disabled Welfare Policy in Taiwan and China
Disabled welfare, as defined here, is confined to rehabilitation, education, employment, nursing, living assistance, provision of a non-handicapping environment, and social and cultural participation. These benefits and measures as defined here match the main content of Taiwan’sDisabled Welfare Act of 1980 which later was amended as the Physically and Mentally Disabled Protection Act of 1997 and later the Protection of Rights and Interests of the Physically and Mentally Disabled Act of 2007. China enacted The Law on the Protection of Disabled Persons in 1991, which is currently under revision, and which has similar provisions to the Taiwan acts. The measures stipulated in the acts in Taiwan and China are mainly public benefits provided by the government, particularly welfare services like social work, with the financial resources coming from the general revenue of the state or local government. In addition the acts include the state’s administrative intervention measure regarding a system of compulsory employment of handicapped persons by enterprises.
The protection of disabled persons is definitely not restricted only to these welfare measures but should also include public health care, house and food provisions, and a social insurance system, particularly health insurance, pension insurance, occupational accident insurance and even long-term care insurance. Whether such a kind of system is established and whether it operates effectively should be the precondition for any discussion of welfare policy such as welfare services. In other words, the need for welfare services would be alleviated when such a social insurance system provides a protective function. If not, the expectations put on the welfare service are naturally increased. Besides public welfare services, the welfare service system in the private sector and the third sector including enterprises, welfare institutions and volunteer groups and volunteer services etc. is also an essential issue in disabled welfare services, and perhaps is even the area for the greatest potential development in disabled welfare policy, and is thus a worthwhile area to explore.
2.1. The Basic Social Provision for Public Health Care, House and Food etc.
Before China began its economic reform, the communist economic system, as implemented by China’sgovernment, made their citizen’slife and their work units closely integrated and such units bore the responsibility for providing living resources
and risk protection. In addition, people could receive, to a certain extent, medical protection provided by the so-called “barefoot doctors”,amedical cooperative system, though the medical resources provided could be very limited.
This economic system in China underwent huge changes after economic reforms. Nowadays, as public enterprises have been marketized, the relationship between workers and the public enterprises they belong to is close to the labor relationship found in industrialized countries. Furthermore, the medical cooperative system with its “barefoot doctors”has also collapsed and been replaced by a medical market economy. To date, the medical system in China has become highly marketized due to the limited development of health insurance.
In Taiwan, the living resources provided by the government has traditionally been relatively limited. Taking medical resources for example, the government set up local public health centers or hospitals, but such public medical institutions were basically public enterprises where the patients have to pay for services except for some public health measures such as preventive injections. Before the implementation of the National Health Insurance in 1995, roughly half of the people in Taiwan were still uncovered by health insurance in which case they needed to pay for any medical services provided.
2.2. Social Insurance
With the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, China implemented a labor insurance system. However, such insurance is better classified as employer’s liability rather than social insurance. Namely, it is a kind of enterprise benefit provided by law which obliges every employer（Danwei）to be responsible for taking care of its unit members. In recent years, social insurance schemes have been continuously established following economic reforms, in particular, unemployment insurance and accident insurance. The coverage of the insured persons under such unemployment insurance or accident insurance is still limited and thus it cannot protect all workers but the measures it provides are somewhat similar to social insurance in industrialized countries. However, there is a vast difference in the pension insurance and medical insurance in China compared to industrialized countries.
the present day are still at an experimental stage and lack clear content. As regards these two kinds of social insurance, such systems are still based on administrative guidelines set out by the central government in Beijing. Only urban workers are obliged to join these insurance schemes while rural areas have the discretion to decide whether to implement them or not. As to the content, besides the basic principles which should be followed, there is still large room for every local government to formulate it. The health insurance not only limits the benefits but establishes individual medical account, which is different from health insurance in industrialized countries.
Its main characteristics consist of:
─ very limited benefits with comparatively limited contributions. In rural areas the contribution rate of experimental health insurance costs only 10 RMB every year, plus a subsidy of 10 RMB from the government, which makes for a total of only 20 RMB every year.
─ a so-called individual medical account system in addition to an ordinary social insurance system
Similarly, the current old-aged security system in China is called old age insurance, but it is still not pure social insurance as found in most industrialized countries. Such a system remains experimental just like the medical insurance, lacking clear content and having the coverage limited to specific regions or workers（e.g. so-called farmer workers and industrial workers from agricultural regions are excluded）. The most important thing to note is that such a system is not pure social insurance but a mixture of social insurance and individual accounts. By current regulation, the contribution rate of social insurance is 20％ of basic salary while the rate of individual accounts is 8％ of basic salary.
In Taiwan, the Labor Insurance implemented in 1950 and enacted in 1958, the Soldier Insurance enacted in 1953, and Government Employees and Educators Insurance enacted in 1958, demonstrates the importance attached by Chiang KaiShek’s regime to social insurance. Such a social insurance system was essentially similar to social insurance in industrialized countries but the medical benefit did not cover family members and the old-age, disability and survivors’benefits were a lump-sum payment.
There was continuous expansion of the insured persons under the Labor Insurance throughout the 1960s, 70s and 80s. A significant growth of social insurance in
Taiwan appeared with the implementation of the National Health Insurance in 1995 and the Unemployment Insurance in 1999. However, the payment of the above-mentioned benefits failed to be changed into pension benefits. On the contrary, the Labor Retirement Benefit system implemented in 2004 set up individual retirement accounts. By law, every employer shall contribute at least 6％ of salary monthly for their workers to each account. Such a development has fully demonstrated the skepticism towards social insurance and the preference for individual accounts shown by Taiwan society.
In 2007, the Congress in Taiwan passed the National Pension Act which is a social insurance scheme covering non-workers and non-government employees.
Furthermore, the reform of changing the lump-sum payment of old-age, disability and survivor’s benefits into regular pension payment under the Labor Insurance has been discussed in the Congress but the reform bill had not been passed at the time this paper was finished.
2.3. Welfare Services and Allowances
Non-insurance disabled welfare is perhaps of much higher importance than that of social insurance in China. We can refer to the report presented by Darimond in the Berlin conference in this respect3. The China Disabled Persons' Federation is basically a kind of public institution for disability protection. This institution has attracted special attention because of its leader, Deng Pufang, who is the son of Deng Xiaoping. The Beijing government has attached importance to various welfare measures for disabled persons by announcing in its 11th five-year plan for the National Economy and Social Development in 2006 of its Implementation Program of Development Guidelines and Corresponding Measures for the Disabled in China. Nevertheless, we can learn from the Communiqué on Major Statistics of the Second China National Sample Survey on Disability (2006-2007) that：
─In 2005, the yearly household income of a family with disabled persons was on average, 4864 RMB in urban areas and 2260 RMB in rural areas. However, 12.95% of yearly household income of family with disabled persons in rural areas was below 683 RMB and 7.96% was between 684 RMB and 944 RMB.
─Among the disabled, the rate of people with medical and assistance needs was 72.78% but in reality only 35.61% received medical service and assistance.
3 Babara Darimond, Status quo and Perspectiven des Rechts und der Politik für Menschen mit
Behinderung: VR China, in: von Maydell-Pitschas-Schulte (Hrsg), Behinderung in Asian und Europa im Politik- und Rechtsvergleich, 2003, 255-275.
─Among the disabled persons in urban areas, roughly 13.28% of them enjoyed locally provided minimum living protection, while 0.75% of them received regular or irregular assistance. In the case of rural areas, the percentage of disabled persons who enjoyed locally provided minimum living protection was 5.12% of the total number of disabled persons.11.68% of these rural disabled received regular or irregular assistance.
In Taiwan, Public Welfare Services and Allowances, the main provision in the Handicapped Welfare Act, is for the most part the core issue that social movements and welfare groups are most concerned about. In this regard, the government always responds to their needs to some extent with a view to stabilizing society and legitimatizing its rule. Nowadays various kind of allowances have played quite an important role in providing income replacement due to the fact that only public servants, military servicemen and educators can enjoy pensions and the Labor Insurance program still only provides old-age, disability and survivor benefits in the form of a lump-sum payment. Currently the allowances in Taiwan mainly include an Old-Age Citizens’Allowance of a monthly amount of NT$ 3,000 under the Provisional Act of the Old-Age Citizens' Welfare Living Allowance, an Old-Age Farmers’Allowance of a monthly amount of NT$ 6,000 under Article 4 of the Provisional Act of the Old-Age Farmers’Allowance and a monthly amount of NT$ 3,000 or 6,000 of Living Allowance for Mid or Low-income Senior Citizens under the Senior Citizen Welfare Act and the Regulations on Living Allowance For Mid or Low-income Senior Citizens4.
As to the allowance targeted at disabled persons, the decision as to how much to pay out is in the hands of a small number of local governments. The level of benefits under this program is between NT$ 1,000 and NT$ 6,000 monthly. In addition, the welfare provision for disabled persons includes schooling, nursing, and economic support programs etc. Notwithstanding, the development of social assistance in Taiwan is still quite underdeveloped. Till now, the beneficiaries of the social assistance system in Taiwan is less than 1％ of the population. In other words, it is still the case that the disabled have difficulty in obtaining protection through social assistance in Taiwan.
4 Article 6 of the Regulation states:：1.there should be an allowance of NT$6,000 dollars if that amount
is less than 1.5 times of the average individual monthly living expense and also less than 1.5 times the average individual monthly living cost in Taiwan. 2.an allowance shall be limited to NT$3,000 dollars if the average individual monthly living expense exceeds 1.5 times but is less than 2.5 times the average individual monthly living expense, and is also less than 1.5 times the average individual monthly living cost in Taiwan.
2.4. Enterprises Welfare
To impose obligations upon enterprises to pay benefits by way of policy or legislation could be said to be a very easy approach. The typical example includes the Labor Insurance implemented in China after 1949, and the Labor Standards Act enacted in 1984 in Taiwan, both of which require employers to take responsibilities to pay retirement benefits and severance pay to their workers. These approaches are rich in patriarchal thought and clearly reject modern social insurance systems. To oblige employers to hire disabled persons and intensify enterprises’social responsibilities is atypical of modern approaches to social insurance. Both Taiwan and China have similar measures in this respect.
2.5. The Third Sector
In Taiwan and China, the welfare institutions for the disabled play an important role. In China, the aforementioned national and local protection institutions of the disabled are of great importance. Such institutions are more a part of the governmental administration than of non-governmental welfare institutions and have a clear bureaucratic character. Comparatively, the non-governmental welfare institutions in China obviously play a very limited role. The development of the private or non-governmental welfare institutions is closely related to the openness of society and political democracy.
The welfare institutions of Taiwan tend to be private and primarily from the third sector. In the past, the welfare institutions from abroad, religious organizations in particular, played an important role. These welfare institutions or organizations achieved their mission at the time. The Bethesda Protectory, a German-established institution in Hualien, Taiwan, can be a significant case. The institution founded in 1955, has now been taken over by Taiwanese and funded by local donations and governmental subsidies. In addition, the Buddhist Compassion Relief Tzu Chi Foundation based in Hualien, Taiwan, a Buddhist charity organization established in 1966, was founded and is run by local Taiwanese. It has more than two hundred branches distributed throughout more than thirty countries and enjoys a prestigious reputation as a welfare organization.
conspicuous for their strong growth, including the Eden Social Welfare Foundation and the Parents’Association forPersonswith IntellectualDisability. These welfare institutions for the disabled are well-organized and provide an effective service. They are part of the National Association of Disabled Welfare Organizations. A former general secretary Wang of this National Association who was also a legislator from 2005 to 2008, is a key proponent moving forward the process of the revision of the Protection of Rights and Interests of the Physically and Mentally Disabled Act. In recent years, with the increase of the governmental subsidy to the welfare of the disabled, the funds and the quality of service of such organizations have been greatly improved.
2.6. Preliminary Conclusion
From the comparison between Taiwan and China, it can be concluded that there is no provision of sufficient pension insurance for both sides and both prefer an individual account system when it comes to pension reform.
The labor insurance system in Taiwan has almost 60 years of history but the payment of old-age/disability/survivor benefits still remains a lump-sum payment rather than regular pension payments as in other industrialized countries. Even if in the near future it could be changed into a regular pension payment, the question is why such reform has experienced difficulties for decades and even has resulted in the implementation of an individual account system in Taiwan ？ In China, where pension systems do exist, the question is why they have chosen to adopt an individual account system even when the development of the pension systems is still very limited？ .
As far as medical care is concerned, the implementation of the National Health Insurance in Taiwan was definitely a very important and significant breakthrough. The overall implementation of health insurance in Taiwan and South Korea demonstrates the implementation possibility of health insurance in other Asian countries, outside of Japan. Such a form of health insurance, though garnering wide public support, still attracts lots of criticism, mainly from economists who go so far as to propose a individual medical account system instead. In comparison, the implementation of medical insurance in China is very limited and the introduction of individual medical accounts is an example of another system that is obviously different from that of industrialized countries.
As regards social assistance, its development is very limited no matter if you are referring to China or Taiwan. The result is that the disabled can hardly expect to enjoy even basic subsistence protection.
3. Foundation of Disabled Welfare Policy in China and Taiwan
3.1. Introduction
Disabled welfare policy includes various welfare measures like education, employment, medical care, pension, long term care, social assistance and so on. However, just as Grasser said：Wie soll ein Menschen mit Behinderung mit gut $ 600 im Monat durchkommen ?5 (How can a disabled person live on US$ 600 dollar per month？) If a disabled person cannot expect to receive a reasonable amount of pension, perhaps a discussion of other measures makes no sense. Besides a pension, medical care and social assistance for basic living protection are even more important and urgent to the disabled. Similarly, it must be asked how the disabled survive if basic medical care, a disability pension and social assistance become impossibilities?
In the existing literature, there have already been many papers discussing the factors affecting social welfare development in Asian countries. Industrialization and democratization are two of the most crucial of the various factors. In this regard, Kuo’s papers including; ”Social Change and Social Security in Taiwan: Lessons for the PRC6”presented at Hamburg,”Volkskrankenversicherung in Taiwan”presented in 1997, “50 years of Social Insurance in Taiwan7”presented in 2000 and “Development and Reform of Social Insurance in Taiwan8”in 2002, have elaborated on this issue. Recently, a paper “Comparative Analysis on the History of Medical Insurance in South Korea and Taiwan: Industrialization, Democratization and Social Policy in Latecomer Societies”presented in China made a similar analysis9.
Similarly, Japan’s social policy has a very close relationship to its industrialization and democratization. It can thus be concluded that industrialization and
5 Alexander Graser, Staus quo und Perspectiven des Rechts und der Poloitik für Menschen mit
Behinderung: USA, in: von maydell/Pitschas/Schulte (Hrsg.), Behinderung in Asien und Europa im Politik- und Rechtsvergleich, 2003, 233-253 (253)
6
In: Krieg/Schädler (Hrsg.), Social Security in the Republic of China, 1994, 340-365.,
7 Kuo, Fifty Years of Social Insurance in Taiwan, in: Boecken/Ruland/Steinmeier (Hrsg.), Sozialpolitik
und Sozialrecht in Deutschaland und Europa, 2002, 421ß433.
8 Kuo, Development, Reform and Perspectives on Social Insurance in Taiwan, in: Kuo/Zacher/Chan
(eds.), Reform and Perspectives on Social Insurance: Lessons from the East and West, 2002, 121-144.
democratization are very important factors in constructing a modern social security system. Without these two factors, the initial development of a social security system still occurred in a country like Taiwan in the 1950s ; however, it could hardly be expected to be an overall and complete development, in particular a social security system covering the disabled？.
On the other hand, the question arises, why have Asian countries, particularly Taiwan and China, been unable to establish a complete modern social security system following their social development? As mentioned earlier, industrialization and democratization are very important factors. Accordingly, the lack of industrialization and democratization are the main factors making it difficult for a social security system to develop soundly. In addition to these crucial factors, what other things could explain the inadequate development of a modern social security system. Among other things, cultural and international factors are often mentioned as important explanations for this inadequate development. For example, Leisering’s paper presented in the Berlin conference made a relevant analysis of this10. However, although Leisering mentioned the influence of Confucianism and international organizations, his paper did not make an in-depth analysis of these factors which left some serious unanswered questions. The next section of this paper will begin with this point. Besides the role of Confucianism and international organizations, the influence of the academic factor will be particularly looked at.
3.2. Cultural foundation
It is highly farfetched or even nonsensical to attribute the inadequate development of a social welfare system, particularly in Asia, to reasons of traditional culture. All Asian countries, including India, Indonesia and Vietnam, have been reported to be traditionally unfriendly and severely discriminatory towards disabled people11.
In regards to China, and even in countries like Taiwan, Korea and Japan which have been under the influence of Confucianism, the Confucianism factor should not be ignored. Related to this, there has been lots in the literature mentioning the importance of family within Confucianism influencing the development of social
10 Lutz Leisering, Ssozuakpolitische und rechtliche Gestaltung der Behindertenpolitik in Asien, in: von
Maydell/Pitschas/Schulte (Hrsg.), Behinderung in Asien und Europa im Politik- und Rechtsvergleich, 2003, 425-439.
11 Please refer to the reports by Ninh Do Thi Hai, Kruse/Schmidt, Prasojo and Gnanasekaran, all in the
Books“TeilhabebehinderterMenschen an derBürgergesellschaftin Asien und Europa”and “Behinderung in Asien und Europa im Politik- und Rechtsvergleich”,both edited by von Maydell, Pitschas and Schulte.
security12。However, such a kind of argument doesn’tmake a lot of sense because the importance of family is absolutely not a strictly Confucian characteristic. It can be found that in Europe, under Christian culture, the importance of family is not second to that in China. The importance of family in China is more attributable to the agricultural economic system, especially the production mode based on the family unit, rather than Confucianism.
Families served the function of protection in agricultural times, as was true in Western countries as well. Therefore, it is not solely a characteristic of Asian countries. To resort to the traditional family unit in Asian industrialized countries or areas does not only hinder the development of social security but also deliberately prevents the development of welfare for the disabled.
With Confucianism, its social ideas should be mentioned first. The most famous Confucian literature is the Analects of Confucius which includes the CHAPTER OF GREAT HARMONY (TA TUNG ). This states that “Provision is secured for the aged till death, employment for the able-bodied, and the means of growing up for the young. Helpless widows and widowers, orphans and the lonely, as well as the sick and the disable, are to be well cared for.”
Both Taiwan and China have a similar conservative attitude towards a social security system, in particular their passive attitude toward social assistance, which could be derived from the traditional Confucian attitude towards the aged, sick and disabled. It is a very interesting question as to why there exists such a similarity in attitudes between Taiwan and China when the economic and political developments for both sides have been quite divergent. It could be argued that Confucian social thought has had only a very limited influence in practice. However, in reality, Confucianism has had a lot of influence on social security attitudes in both Taiwan and China.
It is quite clear that Taiwan and China provide special protection for public servants, including military servicemen, civil servants and educators. The extent of the protection they enjoy is not only more comprehensive than for other citizens but far exceeds that which is available to public servants in Europe and the U.S.
Such a system is closely connected to the Confucian idea of class where society is divided into a ruling class with knowledge and a ruled class without knowledge. Government officials traditionally enjoyed many privileges. Nowadays, social
security has been turned into privileges for government officials. Such a misunderstood and abused social security system is most likely far from what the founders of social security expected it to be.
3.3. The International foundation
As mentioned above, the social policy of the PRC before the 1970s was deeply influenced by communists, that is to say, the Communist International.
Similarly, the origin of Taiwan social insurance also has a close relationship with international society and international organizations. In addition to the advocating of scholars who studied in Europe or America, the influence of the implementation of Japan’s social insurance system, the influence of America during WWII and the participation by Taiwan in international organizations, the UN and the ILO in particular, all have contributed greatly to the implementation of Taiwan’ssocial insurance system.
The role and influence of international organizations play an essential role. Taiwan was a member of the ILO and the UN from the 1950s into the 1970s when the establishment of social insurance was closely connected to the goals of the ILO and the U.N. Afterwards, Taiwan’s social policy was predisposed towards a high level of privatization, characterized by the unique development of compulsory employer’s retirement benefits and severance pay in 1984, when Taiwan was withdrawing from international organizations one after another.
Such a development was very different from other countries at that time and concurrently it was hard for Taiwan to seek for international support of this policy. Therefore, the privatization process did not move further until the 1990s. At this period of time there came huge changes.
Under the situation, the pension reform proposal of the World Bank—the replacement of social insurance by individual retirement accounts, facilitated all the anti-welfare proponents in gaining full support and becoming more arrogant. The pension reform proposal of the World Bank is the most important factor in the implementation of individual retirement accounts in Taiwan. The governments in Taiwan, China, and in several other Asian countries as well as countries hostile to social welfare all strongly endorsed the World Bank proposal. Without the World Bank, China and Taiwan would not have necessarily introduced individual retirement accounts.
Presently, even Stiglitz and Modigliani sternly criticize individual retirement accounts. They think that this view of individual accounts is wrong and is based on a series of myths which only serve the interests of asset managers13. Such accusations, if confirmed, will prove the World Bank to be a misguided or perhaps even an evil institution which brings disasters, rather than blessings, to human beings. Labor, especially the disabled labor in question, who cannot get social protection and even suffer loss, could possibly file lawsuits and claim damages against the World Bank. The question is whether the World Bank can afford it？
It is regrettable when the World Bank has promoted its policy of individual accounts which has become the accepted system in many countries. In the meantime, what is the ILO doing? The ILO not only is passive, but in fact is doing nothing. The passiveness of the ILO is a major cause of this disaster of the widespread introduction of an individual account system.
3.4. Academic Foundation
The above described privatization has not just impeded development of social security systems but also made it hard to expect much protection for the disabled. Such a development is attributable to domestic cultural factors and political factors, particularly politicians’ignorance of social security under limited democracy. As mentioned earlier, the politicians’can justify their choice of individual retirement accounts as opposed to social insurance by the support given to individual retirement accounts by the World Bank.
Besides the international support for individual retirement accounts, who are the other supporters of individual retirement accounts in the home countries besides the politicians? The answer is academics, particularly economists. Economists in Taiwan, most of them studied in the US, are mostly against a social security system. They favor the market mechanism of privatization, especially individual accounts. This is why the labor insurance of Taiwan up till now has not adopted a pension system and the key reason for why Taiwan practices an obligatory individual account system. In Taiwan, a lot of economists refer to the economist and political philosopher, Friedrich Hayek, to justify their opposition to social security. However, the economists in
13
Kuo, Privatization versus the Right to Social Security: The Taiwan Case, in: Langendonck (ed.), The Right to Social Seurity, 2006, 397-416.
Taiwan confuse the situation by seemingly not being aware or letting it be known that Hayek, who strongly defended a free economy and classical liberalism, was not against welfare states as long as the social welfare was not monopolized by the government. In addition, the economists in Taiwan ignore the criticisms of the World Bank’s welfare policies byStiglitz and Modigliani. Thus, we can see that the opposition of the economists is not based on their academic knowledge but on their own personal or political preferences and interest groups. Such economists work for the government for the interest of themselves, specific groups, or for the governing class.
Various academic fields in Taiwan are guilty of opposing or not supporting social welfare systems. The academic fields of political science and public administration have long ignored social welfare. The field of law has been no better. In Taiwan, some Grand justices who have been working as jurists, for example, Yu Shei-ming, have strongly advocated an individual account system in their opinions given on a Constitutional interpretation. Even many scholars and professors of sociology, social work, social policy, and social welfare prefer privatization. Some of them have shown high hopes for welfare states, but they do not necessarily identify with the social insurance systems implemented in industrialized countries such as Germany. Basically, such scholars are mostly educated in the US or the UK. Some of these scholars and professor have gone so far as to indicate that they regard social insurance as a low-level social protection system, a means of social control, and a system which is only limited to the socially advantaged workers14. They always cite Esping-Anderson and refer to Germany’s social welfare as a conservative welfare state, or as second-rate welfare state. What sociologists prefer is definitely not social insurance but a public medical system and more social service of the kind provided by the National Health Service. Furthermore, a lot of sociologists also prefer a private individual account system. For example, Professor Ho-Sheng Chan, the former minister of the Council of Labor Affairs, is an advocate and promoter of individual accounts.
Such a phenomenon of favoring privatization is also seen in China. Li Tieying, the former President of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences once stated：As far as I know, European and American states are also reforming their social security systems, mainly to resolve the problem of “welfare illness”formed as a result of excessively good welfare treatment. Singapore, Chile and other countries are applying the model
14
Li-Yeh Fu, The Social Control Essence of the social Insurance System in Taiwan (in Chinese), A Radical Quarterly in Social Studies, No. 15 (1993), 165-190.
of compulsory savings social security15.
It is quite obvious that in China, particularly in academia, a social security system in which social insurance constitutes a major part is highly questioned. On the contrary, the Chilean model, where you have individual accounts of compulsory savings is highly welcome, and even is regarded as the best solution to solve the welfare state issues. From what we have written, it can now be more easily understood why China would adopt the path of individual accounts. However, through such a selection of individual accounts, how can the disabled expect to obtain effective protection?
Such a loss of confidence in social insurance as seen in welfare states does not come just from academia, in particular economists, and other sources in Taiwan or China. As a matter of fact, even some European sociologists also strongly criticize social insurance. When Leisering cited Esping-Andersen to classify Continental countries like Germany as a Conservative welfare state which particularly attaches importance to security while relatively ignoring freedom and equality16, this also explains why the social security system in Germany or other Continental countries, particularly social insurance, is considered by some to be an inferior second-rate system. This argument that social insurance is absolutely not the best choice appears to have become dominant among sociologists.
4. Concluding Remarks
From what was mentioned above, we can see that the influence of academic factors is far greater than that of political or cultural factors on disabled welfare policy in China and Taiwan. Academe has played a vital role in both social policy and disabled welfare policy. The behavior of a lot of political figures is a sort of conditioned behavior dominated by academic culture.
We can also see that international factors, most of the time, outweigh domestic factors. The establishment and development of social security can be attributed to international influence and so can its stagnation and obsoleteness. As a result, the impact of the international foundation for disabled policy cannot be ignored and
15 Tieying Li, Reform of China´s Social Security System Faces Arduous Tasks and Long Way to Go –
General Preamble to SSSS –Series of Social Securities, in: Dongjin Wang (ed.), The Reform and Development of Social Security System in China, 2001, 1-19. (17).
obviously has a greater influence than domestic culture.
If academic obstacles and international obstacles cannot be removed, the development of social security is doomed. Without a complete health insurance, how can a disabled person gain sufficient medical care and rehabilitation? This is a key issue in China. If we keep being frenzied with an individual retirement account system, how can the disabled, especially the economic security of disabled labor, be fully protected? The same problem exists in many Asian countries such as Taiwan, China, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Taking into consideration this problem, Japan implemented long term care insurance in 2000, which has been a tremendous exception to welfare policies in other Asian countries. The experience of Japan also explains that it is not impossible to practice a social security system in Asia which incorporates the key functions of social insurance. The National Health Insurance implemented in Taiwan also demonstrates the possibility of practicing a beneficial form of health insurance in an area dominated by Chinese culture.
If the Word Bank, and in addition, Esping-Andersen still play a dominant role in the formation of social welfare policy, a sound social security system in Asia will always be an impossibility. With the influence of the World Bank and Esping-Andersen, a competent disabled welfare policy in Asia will always be difficult to achieve.
To sum up, the underdevelopment of disabled welfare in Asia can be partially attributable to the traditional culture, religion and the political development in the area. However, this underdevelopment is also attributable to international factors, especially the anti-welfare stance of the Word Bank and academic factors, especially the anti-welfare viewpoint of many international and domestic economists. What can not be overlooked though is that without the passive reaction of the ILO and the sociologists, the anti-welfare policies that have been put in place in China and Taiwan could definitely not have been implemented.
附件二： 法務部委託專題研究計畫成果報告 (96 年 7 月 15 日至 96 年 11 月 30 日) 「離婚配偶對原配偶老年給付之剩餘財產請求權 --社會保險之老年給付以及勞工、軍公教人員退休金作為剩餘財產請求權相關問 題及立法芻議之探討」 計畫主持人：國立政治大學法律系教授 郭明政 目 次 壹、問題之提出‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧1 貳、研究標的‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧1 參、研究之時間、地點與合作之學者、專家‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧2 肆、有關法律規定與解釋‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧3 伍、文獻回顧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧5 陸、國際比較‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧7 柒、德國法制‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧8 捌、瑞士法制‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧12 玖、其他外國法制之介紹‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧14 一、英國‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧14 二、美國‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧17 三、加拿大‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧19 四、日本‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧21 拾、台灣現行制度的檢討與改革建議‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧23 拾壹、參考文獻‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧27 拾貳、附件‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧29
壹、問題之提出 我國早在 1930 年代即已陸續建立軍公教人員之退休制度，自 1950 年代起也陸續 建立勞工保險、軍人保險及公教保險等社會保險制度，而有各種社會保險的老年 給付。此外，復有 1984 年勞動基準法退休金制度及 2005 年勞工退休金條例相關 制度之實施。惟此等制度皆未考慮到離婚者有關權益保障之問題，遂使得眾多離 婚配偶無法獲得此等制度之保障。近年來，隨著勞工退休金條例之制訂，此等問 題也獲得更多的重視。 貳、 研究標的 研究標的，將不以勞工退休金條例之相關給付為範疇，而及於勞動基準法、軍公 教人員等退休給付以及各種社會保險的老年給付。 又此研究將包括以下議題，即： ─ 如果不另行立法，各種退休或老年給付可否被認定為剩餘財產？ ─ 不論是否被認定為剩餘財產，是否應另行立法？ ─ 如果另行立法，應於何等法律中規定？其法律條文應有何內容？應如何規 定？ 參、 研究之時間、地點與合作之學者、專家 時間： 本計畫原訂之執行時間為 2007 年 7 月 1 日至 2007 年 10 月 30 日。10 月取得德 國的修正草案後，經委託單位之同意延至 11 月 30 日。 地點： 環視當今各國制度，德國在此等問題上的處理，尤其在德國民法中有關照護平衡 （Versorgungsausgleich）的規定，可說最為先進，也因而成為各國仿效、繼受 的典範。至於研究機構，慕尼黑的 Max-Planck 外國及國際社會法當屬權威的研 究機構。此一研究所甚且曾接受美國政府之委託，進行專案之比較研究。有鑑於 計畫主持人曾在此一研究機構進行多年之博士論文研究（1985-1989）、擔任研究 員（1990）以及客座研究員（1996）之經歷，本研究除在政大法學院進行必要的 準備工作外，將以此一研究所為主要研究地點。 合作之學者與實務界專家：
於 2007 年 7 月本計畫主持人特前往此一研究所，計畫主持人該與該所前任所長， 也是 Max-Planck 研究院的前院長 Zacher 教授以及照護平衡的專家 Reinhard 教授進行會談，聽取他們的寶貴意見及建議，並獲贈他們受美國政府所委託的研 究計畫 Comparative Study on Credit Splitting 一份共四冊，請見附件。2007 年 10 月計畫主持人受邀前往此一研究所參與國際研討會，再次與 Zacher 教授及 Reinhard 教授會談，並取得德國政府於 8 月始行提出的修法草案，亦請見附件。 除此之外，計畫主持人於慕尼黑研究期間，特地拜會 Erding 的 Amtsgericht 區 法院法官 Reichert，並與之就本研究計畫之實務問題，進行討論。 肆、有關法律規定與解釋 一、勞工保險條例、勞工退休金條例等與退休金、養老給付有關法規 直到目前為止，舉凡勞工保險條例、公教人員保險條例、軍人保險條例、公務人 員退休法、教職員退休條例、陸海空軍軍官士官服役條例、勞動基準法、勞工退 休金條例，皆未有關於離婚配偶請求權的任何規定，亦即： ─ 離婚者是否得以直接請領其離婚配偶的退休或老年給付，未有任何規定。 ─ 離婚者，是否得以向離婚配偶請求給付半數或部份退休或老年給付，亦未有 任何規定。 二、民法 1985 年親屬法修法之前，不但未有退休金與養老給付的相關規定，也未有有關 剩餘財產的規定。 1985 年修法後，1030-1 條引進了剩餘財產之規定，其規定如下： 法定財產制關係消滅時，夫或妻現存之婚後財產，扣除婚姻關係存續所 負債務後，如有剩餘，其雙方剩餘財產之差額，應平均分配。但下列財 產不在此限： 一、因繼承或其他無償取得之財產。 二、慰撫金。 依前項規定，平均分配顯失公平者，法院得調整或免除其分配額。
第一項剩餘財產差額之分配請求權，自請求權人知有剩餘財產之差額時 起，二年間不行使而消滅。自法定財產制關係消滅時起，逾五年者，亦 同。 依前條應追加計算之婚後財產，其價值計算以處分時為準。 2002 年親屬法修法後，法定財產制雖已重大修訂，但 1031 條之 1 並未有所修改， 而繼續是法定財產制的有關規定。 至於法定財產制以外的約定財產制，包括分別及共同財產制，並未有任何關於剩 餘財產的規定。其中，約定為共同財產制者，於離婚時，當適用 1040 條之規定， 亦即：「共同財產制關係存續中取得之共同財產，由夫妻各得其半數。」惟依其 但書，則有「但另有約定者，從其約定」之規定。又 1041 條有所謂勞力所得為 限之共同財產。依該條第二項之規定，所謂勞力所得，係指：「夫或妻於婚姻關 係存續中取得之薪資、工資、紅利、獎金及其他與勞力所得有關之財產收入。勞 力所得之孳息及代替利益，亦同。」按法務部修草擬草案時，曾有將退休金列為 勞力所得之提議，但最後並未列入。（法務部，民法親屬篇研究修正實錄（以下 簡稱實錄）（下）813 頁以下） 至於約定的分別財產制，僅有 1044、1046 兩條規定。此二條規定均未提及剩餘 財產，也未提及退休、養老給付等問題。 在有關的判解中，最為重要者，乃是大法官會議 620 號解釋。經由此號解釋，所 謂剩餘財產是否包括 1985 年以前所取得財產之爭議，終獲得解決。此一解釋所 解決的不只是剩餘財產的認定範疇，更是過去所謂法律不溯既往的誤解的糾正。 就此，彭鳳至大法官早在 2004 年即以為文加以批判，並明確指出所謂不溯及既 往之說法根本是法律不溯及既往原則的誤用。此外，勞保條例中有關年資不中斷 的規定（不超過 6 年或 2 年）也再三被法院以法律不溯既往為例而拒絕適用。最 後，只好經由立法院的立法，始解決該等問題。那也是誤用法律不溯既往的典型 成例。 國內實務界及學界長期誤用不溯及既往原則作為拒斥前述勞工年資不中斷規定 以及民法親屬篇剩餘財產條款之適用，不只暴露台灣司法及法學界不但對社會政 策、男女平等以及家庭保護的憲法規定少有認知，更暴露出對法治國原則的陌 生，甚至對於法律適用的法教條學 Rechtsdogmatik 也極度有限。此等行為（出 於無知或故意？）所造成的巨大損害，如何賠償，如何追究責任，乃是目前應嚴 肅面對的問題。
伍、
文獻回顧 一、立法資料 觀諸立法資料，退休金及養老給付的議題，顯然要到 84 年法務部所成立的民法 親屬篇修正委員會後使獲得重視。如同法務部 2002 年所出版「民法親屬篇研究 修正實錄─夫妻財產制部份」的序言所揭示者，「剩餘財產分配請求權」僅有一 條的簡略規定，乃是此次研究修正委員會之所以成立的主要緣由。然而歷經四 年、超過五十次會議的結果，不但未有新增條文，此唯有的一個條文也幾乎未有 任何變動。 惟退休金的問題在該委員會開會初期即已受到重視，尤其林菊枝教授之提案。依 林教授之提案，其所欲修改者乃是整體的夫妻財產制，並在此基礎上提出「勞力 所得共同制」。（實錄上冊，62 以下）此一提案，顯然係其所提法定共同財產制 的核心內容。又依其提案與說明，此等勞力所得包含退休金。（實錄，109）然而， 此等提案並未受到與會委員的支持。在基本原則上，此次修法顯然採行了魏大喨 法官所堅持，且為林秀雄教授等所支持的以分別財產制為主要內涵的法定財產 制。（實錄，68-69，71─72） 其結果，林教授所主張的勞力所得共同制遂被移到約定的共同財產制的 1041 條，已聊備一格。又其所提將退休金定位為勞力所得的提案文字，也被委員會刪 除。（冊 813-814） 其所持之理由： ─ 德國社會制度，在每一工作者均各有固定戶頭，每隔幾年退休金即會自動進 入該戶頭下，將尚未發生之退休金預估計算較不困難。我國制度與德制不同， 且各行業並無統一之退休制度，如欲將未發生之退休金列入勞力所得計算， 執行上有其困難存在。 ─ 配偶一方未來可請求退休金之數額，在何時退休未能確知下，並不具確定性， 難以預先估算；且如夫妻一方離婚後多次再婚，與其結束婚姻關係之前配偶， 如對其繼續有退休金分配請求權存在，將使法律關係益形複雜，如何規範？ 徒增困難。 ─ 修正後法定財產制對於退休金部份並無特別規定，而勞力所得共同制僅為約 定財產之一種，未來採行此制似甚有限，似無特為規範之必要。 ─ 在相關制度尚未配合建立之前，似以加強妻離婚時贍養費請求權之規定，俾 能保障經濟弱勢者之一方。（同上）二、學術研究 國內的學術文獻中，雖不乏針對剩餘財產加以討論的論文或書籍。但此等論文或 書籍中，卻極少，甚至幾乎全然忽視退休金分割或照護平衡的問題。按前述法務 部委員會的委員除了實務界，亦有多位學者參與。從他們的決議，即可知此等學 者，對於退休金分割的議題，不只不感興趣，甚至抱持否定態度。 間或有提及者，但也極微簡略、負面評價。以林信旭所撰寫的博士論文「聯合財 產制之研究─以剩餘財產分配請求權為中心」為例，可以見之。按該博士論文的 第三章雖以「財產分配之範圍」為章名，但幾無隻字片語提到退休金或老年給付。 該論文雖提到「期待權」、「商譽或自由職業之信譽」，但竟以「無可諱言，應如 何評估此等財產實非易事」，加以搪塞了事。（169-170） 陸、國際比較 目前各國的照護平衡制度約略可分為四大類： ─ 未有任何相關制度者，例如台灣； ─ 離婚鰥寡年金，以奧地利為代表 ─ 離婚者年金（公共年金），以美國為代表 ─ 照護平衡制，以德國為代表 就各國加以評估： 德國：複雜，但充足。反之，其他國家（美國、加拿大、瑞士、英國、美國及荷 蘭）的制度雖簡單，但卻不完整，而僅限於部份制度。 在以上制度中，德國制度，不只領先其他國家，而累積眾多經驗，而深值深入探 究。再者，其提出的改革計畫，更見其對既有制度的評估、檢討以及最新的思維 與改革計畫。 除此之外，最值得注意者，當推瑞士 2000 年的新制。按我國的舊制可謂源於瑞 士。但瑞士在 1988 年曾有極為徹底的修改，而採行所得財產分配制。就此，戴 東雄教授曾為文加以說明。（戴東雄， 2000，197 以下）在文中，戴教授曾指出， 依瑞士 1988 年之改革，夫妻任何一方對他方在婚姻存續中之所得財產，各能請 求二分之一。（201 頁）此外，戴教授也提及瑞士民法 197 條所規定的財產範圍
係包括個人福利金、社會保險金及社會福利金17 。（204 頁）雖然如此，此等引介， 顯然未引起注意，也未成為修法的參照。 如今，更值注意的是，瑞士在 2000 的新修法又有了新的規定。此等改革，不僅 在瑞士被廣泛注意，甚至也在德國引起至大迴響。如今德國所以提出改革法案， 瑞士的改革，乃是極為重要的因素。 柒、德國法制 一、沿革 經由 1976 年的婚姻改革法，德國實施了照護平衡（Versorgungsausgleich）制 度。有關的規定，係規定於民法的第四篇家庭法第七節離婚第三款 1587 條以下 （現行法分為五目共 17 個條文 1587-1587p）。在其後的修法中，1983 年增訂苛 刻條款的修法（Gesetz zur Regelung von Harten im Versorgungsausgleich von 21.2.1983），可說是最為重要的修法。 二、現行制度 現行法的主要條目如下： 民法第四篇 家庭法 第七節 離婚 第三款 照護平衡 第一目 通則 1587 第二目 照護期待或期望的價值平衡 1587a-1587e 第三目 照護平衡之債 1587f-1587n 第四目 當事人合意 1587o 第五目 照護債務人 1587p 在以上條文中，1587 條指出照護平衡的標的乃指在婚姻期間所形成對於老年或 失能照護的期待或期望。惟依第二項之規定，非經由財產或勞動所獲致之期待或
17 其原文為 Die Leistungen von Personalfuersorgeeinrichrichtungen, Sozialversicherungen und
Sozialfuersorgeeinrichtungen. 若譯為中文，或可譯為：人事照護機構、社會保險及社會扶助機構 的給付。
期望，皆不予計入。 1587a 可說是整個照護平衡制度的核心條文。依其規定，照護期待或期望值高 者，應將其超過離婚配偶部分之半數讓與其離婚配偶。 1587b 規定，照護平衡應經由家事法院裁定。 1587c 的限制與排除條款則規定，在特定情形下，例如明顯出現不公平的現象 者，則可加以限制或排除。 1587d 則規定，裁判後若因特定之情事，致有不公平等情事發生，亦可請求將原 有的照護平衡停止。 1587 規定彼此的告知義務。此外，則規定請求權人死亡時其照護平衡請求權因 此消滅，但義務人死亡則不消滅，而轉為繼承債務。 從 1587f 至 1587n 的八個條文係規定，在特定情形下，如有照護期待或期望未能 確定等情形，將形成請求權人對於義務人的照護債權。在特定情形下，亦有得以 提前請求補償金(Abfindung)之可能(1587l)。1587m 則是等補償金取消的有關規 定。1587n 則是此等補償金可以折抵贍養費的有關規定。 基於 158718 o，當事人可就照護平衡的內容加以約定。惟此等約定應經由法院許 可。法院認為有顯失公平者，得以不許可。 至於 1587p，則針對已對義務人給付者，義務人應有債務責任的有關規定。 以下僅將其綱領條款，即 1587 條及 1587a 第一項、第二項分譯如下： 1587 條： 離婚配偶在婚姻期間獲得 1587a 條第 2 項所規定之老年、失能照護的期待或期望 者離婚配偶應適用照護平衡。凡非基於財產或勞力所獲得的期待或期望，不予併 入計算。 所謂婚姻期間係指結婚時之當月以至離婚時之當月。 照護平衡所植基的期望或期待應完全適用以下規定，並排除夫妻財產有關規定之
適用。 1587a 第一項： 照護期待或期望值較高的離婚配偶為照護平衡的義務人。擁有照護平衡權利的離 婚配偶可獲得兩人照護價值差額的半數。 1587a 第二項： 此項共分為 5 款，第四款又分為四目，第 4 款 2 目，而極為冗長，因此僅摘要說 明如下）： 應調查的價值差異包括以下各種期待或期望值，亦即第一款所規定的公務人員的 退休金、第二款所規定的法定年金，第三款所規定的企業年金，第四款所規定的 類似的定期金以及第五款所規定的私人保險年金。 由此可知，法律條文所明文規定的乃是定期金給付之照護平衡。至於一次給付 者，例如所謂資本人壽保險 Kapiatallebenversicherung、企業所給的一次給 付，其是否應屬照護平衡之標的，在過去曾有爭議。但在今日，尤其司法實務， 已將其認定為應予計算的標的19 。此等認定，原則上並非基於照護平衡之明文規 定，而是經由法院判決所形成之實務共識。 三、改革計畫 依據 2007 年 8 月 29 日德國法務部所提出改革計畫，既有的照護平衡制度的基本 原則雖繼續獲得高度肯定，甚且要更加貫徹。也因此有必要將既有的法律規定加 以改革。其改革的理由主要有二： 1. 既有的法律每每無法完全貫徹合理共享(gerechte Teilhabe)的目標，也就是 在實務運作上每每偏離法律所揭櫫之理想。其二，則是既有的法律過度複雜，使 得僅有少數專家才能理解。 因此，此次改革將繼續原有的基本原則並強化此一制度。又鑑於此一制度的繁複 性，因此此次改革將著重在技術層面的改革。其所追求之目標，尤在於將既有制 度給予簡化，並制訂一個共有 48 個條文稱為照護平衡法 Gesetz uber den
Versorgungsausgleich 的特別法。 考其改革內容，尤其第一條之規定，今後夫妻任何一方所獲得之老年或失能的期 待或期望的半數，將歸屬於其配偶。經由如此改革，將不再有彼此比較、加減以 及差額折半的計算過程。 僅將其綱領條款的第一條、第二條翻譯如下： 在照護平衡之事件，在婚姻期間由配偶一方所取得之期待權 Anrecht（婚姻時期 所佔的部份）之一半應歸於配偶之另一方。 任何在婚姻期間獲得請求權者，皆為本法平衡義務人。此婚姻期間期待值的二分 之一歸給該期間的配偶。 第二條： 本法所稱之期待權係指照護之期待以及持續照護之請求，尤其是屬於法定年金保 險、政府體系，例如公務人員照護、自由業的照護、企業老年照護及私人預護 private Vorsorge. 符合以下規定者，皆屬應予平衡之期待權： （1） 經由勞動或財產所形成或維持之期待權； （2） 其目的為老年及失能之保障，尤其職業不能、就業不能及勤務不能； （3） 以年金給付為其型態者，依據企業年金法而給付者。 以資本方式給付者，亦同。 本法所稱之期待，在婚姻結束之時，縱然仍未符合必要的等待期間、最低投保期 間或相類的時間要件時，亦不受影響。 本法所規定之期待權，不適用夫妻財產制之平衡規定。 捌、瑞士法制 經由 2000 年之修法，瑞士民法於 201 條之 204 條，特就該國的企業年金的照護 平衡加以規定。按瑞士的社會保險年金在離婚時已在 1997 年的年金改革法中加
以規定，而使得離婚者獲得應有之保障。依其規定，婚姻期間配偶一方所獲得的 社會保險年金期待權的一半將歸於其離婚配偶。其期間，原則上以婚姻期間為 限。但扶養子女者，可繼續延長。（Schwenzer, 147 以下） 因此，民法的修法特別針對第二層的企業年金或謂職業年金。 其規定翻譯如下： 第 122 條 配偶中之一人或二人屬於特定職業照護機構之成員，且未有任何一人已獲得照護 給付之情形下，任一方得請求他方依據 1993 年 12 月 17 日自由遷徙法在婚姻存 續期間所得以計算的照護給付的半數。 配偶彼此互有請求權者，僅就差額加以分割。 第 123 條 若老年與失能預護得以其他方法獲得確保，配偶之一方得基於合意全部或部份放 棄其請求權。 基於財產爭議或離婚後經濟關係之考量，若分割結果會造成不公平者，法院得全 部或部份否決此等分割。 第 124 條 若配偶中一人已開始領取照護給付或兩人皆已開始領取，或基於其他因素使得婚 姻存續期間所獲得職業照護請求權無法被分割，則應給予適當之補償。 如有必要，法院得要求前項補償債務人提出擔保。 至於第三層的老年照護，尤指私人保險（包括儲蓄保險）及儲蓄等，則適用夫妻 財產制的規定，而以讓與之方式行之。其中，儲蓄保險雖較難，但仍得以解約之 價值為現值計算，或分割為兩個保單，以免減損其價值。又如果此等第三層的照 護難以分割，則可以資產給付之方式加以處理。（以上特別參見 Schwenzer 151-151）
