The Executive Yuan's Central Personnel Administration has completed draft regulations to introduce morality and loyalty checks on government employees. The idea is to vet employees whose jobs involve such areas as national security, defense, foreign affairs, science and technology, finance and economics, and China. Under the proposed regulations, before personnel are recruited or transferred to new posts, the Ministry of Justice will investigate whether they have a drug or alcohol problem, have ever had contact with "rebellious groups" or foreign intelligence agents, maintain dual citizenship or have ever been involved in any financial irregularities.
Taiwan has witnessed massive outrage and controversy over the defections of former army commander Justin Lin (林毅夫), former National Security Bureau (NSB) chief cashier Liu Kuan-chun (劉冠軍) and former NSB personnel department chief Pan Hsi-hsien (潘希賢). It is in this atmosphere that the question of government employees' morality and loyalty has become the center of public attention and debate.
The debate centers on such issues as the legitimacy of the so-called morality and loyalty checks, their purpose and whether they are really necessary. What parameters would be set for the vetting procedures? How would they be conducted? How would the findings be evaluated and the degree of morality and loyalty graded? How does one conduct, use and manage investigation reports? Is there any appeal mechanism? Is there any mechanism for oversight to prevent abuses? These issues must be addressed, for the sake of both national security and people's rights and interests.
To ensure the quality of government performance, as well as to protect confidential information, many countries -- such as the US and the UK -- have long carried out background checks and enhanced security checks on government workers. Efforts are made to build security classification systems and to strengthen confidentiality safeguards at government agencies. The legitimacy and necessity of such measures have never been questioned. Both the FBI in the US and the Canadian Security Intelligence Ser-vice, for example, carry out background checks on new recruits. Their findings are submitted to the government agencies recruiting the staff to assist them in filtering out potential threats to government security. Moreover, construction companies and their personnel involved in construction related to national defense or security have to undergo such checks as well.
I should point out that while the Western governments' security check systems stress national security, they also place great emphasis on the protection of people's rights and interests. Security checks must comply with the law and are restricted in scope. Issues that touch on basic human rights, for example -- such as political affiliation, religious beliefs and sexual orientation -- and other issues that are irrelevant to the morality and loyalty of government servants are uniformly excluded from investigations.
Moreover, such checks have to be performed on the basis of standardized principles, procedures and methods. The entire process is sought to be institutionalized, research of data conducted through electronic means and investigation results transparent. The use and management of findings are regulated by the law, and the findings may not be used for purposes other than the employee's recruitment or be circulated at will. A person who is vetted is entitled not only to inquire about the findings but also to file a grievance and seek redress if necessary. Apart from administrative supervision and regular internal reviews, government agencies responsible for the checks must also present reports to the legislature.
There seems to be a good few potential problems facing the government's proposed morality and loyalty checks, leaving aside the need it will create for additional manpower and funds. Can the nature and outcome of such vetting be taken as a basis for judging someone's morality or loyalty? Will the findings be accurate, convincing and measurable? The clash between those favoring unification and those who want independence has become all the more ambiguous since the Justin Lin case. So how can we judge the loyalty of government servants simply on the basis of their relationships and contact with foreign officials?
Will those with good connections or those doing business in countries that do not have good relations with Taiwan be considered disloyal? Moreover, can personal privacy and human rights be protected during such investigations? Will the investigation results be used for other purposes, or be circulated or abused at will?
Since these problems will seriously damage people's rights and interests, as well as their dignity, perhaps both the ruling and opposition camps should take these concerns into account.
Chang Chung-yung is director of the public security department at Central Police University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under