The Hualien County commissioner by-election has recently led to accusations of partiality by the leading party. These accusations demand clarification on when the administration is required to be impartial and when its members may campaign on behalf of the party. Otherwise, the public's trust in the government may be destroyed should they become confused about the principle of impartiality and thus fail to see the distinction between party politics and necessary impartiality.
Is it appropriate for a minister from the administration to campaign for its candidate in Hualien? Has there been selective law enforcement by the National Police Adminstration during its anti-corruption crackdown? Is it appropriate for the ruling party to attract votes with policy announcements? Is treating voters to pig roasts equivalent to vote-buying? Was the president of the Department of Health-run Yu-li Psychiatric Hospital being partisan by advising patients to vote a certain way?
In mature democracies, civil servants are usually provided with financial means and guidance regarding their role and participation in political activities. Such measures are to ensure that they carry out their duties in a law-abiding manner and are free from improper intervention from political forces. Therefore, the significance of an impartial administration is to establish and maintain people's trust in civil servants so that the administrative body can be stable and sustainable and continue to be fair and equal.
To achieve this end, it is essential to have government recruitment exams in open competition, a performance-based personnel management system, effective and immediate protection of rights, appropriate regulation of political activities, and mature development of party politics.
Unfortunately, Taiwan still lacks legislation outlining where neutrality by the government is required as well as a mature culture of party politics. This explains why Taiwan is not yet able to provide competition opportunities in a fair political environment.
Over the past few years, controversy over partisanship has arisen in such areas as: abuse of administrative resources, the gray area between campaigning during and after working hours, campaigning without taking leave of absence, selective enforcement of the law and so on. Much in debate are also the lack of clear boundaries for neutrality in appointments and whether civil servants can take up party positions simultaneously or participate in party activities.
As these issues have caused problems, the Cabinet's Central Personnel Administration and the Examination Yuan's Ministry of Civil Service notified all government agencies before the last legislative election that civil servants are not allowed to campaign during their working hours. They were also advised to moderate themselves in their after-hour campaigning and in their absence. They are restricted from wearing any clothes, flags or pins representing candidates at their working places. Meanwhile, high-ranking officials cannot force their employees to join a certain political party, to support a certain candidate or oppose another.
Unfortunately, such effort has solved only a small part of the problem. When an election draws near, we can still hear from time to time that some civil servants clearly are not being impartial or that some heads of government agencies abuse their administrative resources.
Nevertheless, the need for impartiality has attracted increasing attention and has become one of the most important indicators of the administration's performance. After the transition of political power, Taiwan in fact has provided a better environment for civil servants to exercise impartiality.
Now we need a law to clarify what is being partisan and what is not and to regulate the appropriate participation of civil servants in political activities. Then there will be a set of rules for civil servants to follow, and a standard for the public to base their judgment on. Taiwanese can then truly develop trust in their government.
Chen Sung-shan is a member of the Civil Service Protection and Training Commission at the Examination Yuan.
Translated by Jennie Shih
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath