The nationalities and green cards of government officials have been a focus of media attention in the past few weeks. This issue, which should be resolved through legislation, is more familiar to officials than the public.
Article 20 of the Nationality Act (國籍法) states that a person who acquires citizenship in another country “has no right to hold government office in the Republic of China (ROC).”
There are no regulations, however, ensuring the implementation of this law, which has led to the situation we are seeing now. As a result, the public can only take officials at their word that they do not have dual citizenship. This is indicative of a wider problem, the lack of background checks on officials.
Article 4 of the Civil Service Employment Act (公務人員任用法) states that officials must undergo background checks concerning their ethics and loyalty before taking up a government post.
The word “loyalty” refers to allegiance and thus any foreign citizenship held by an individual. But this law is only enforced in the case of bureaucrats.
In the case of high-level special appointees and elected representatives, loyalty can only be determined through statements from those involved. As a result, the media and political parties have repeatedly sought to conduct their own background checks on high-ranking officials.
Another matter that must be addressed is that low-ranking officials naturally follow the lead of their superiors. Although the need for background checks is stipulated by law, not many government agencies perform them. When a new employee is hired, most agencies simply ask that they sign a statement saying that they are not violating the conditions stated in the “loyalty” law. The paper is signed and filed away, and the agency does not check the veracity of the statement.
The controversy of the last few weeks should be an eye-opener, making it clear that this issue needs to be resolved.
To prevent future scandals, the Cabinet should draw up formal regulations for background checks into candidates for any government positions involving national security or significant benefits.
The regulations should apply to both political appointees and elected representatives, so as to ensure the rules are followed across the board.
Steps must then be taken at every agency from the top down to ensure that security checks are conducted for all new employees.
To accomplish this, the government must stipulate administrative or criminal liability for any agency chief who fails to consistently implement such checks.
All new employees should be required to hand in information related to their background and to sign statements of authenticity for each document.
The authorities should then examine the paperwork. Government agencies must have the authority to investigate such documents legally.
Taiwan’s democracy has come a long way, yet the lack of background and security checks for those administrating our country has not made any progress.
What is confusing is that the system seems to have been especially designed to monitor ordinary, low-level civil servants, while paying no attention to those highest up.
As the old proverb goes, the government is willing to catch flies, but dares not catch tigers. Small wonder then that the public is so skeptical of statements by its leaders.
Hsu Kuen-lung is a student in the Graduate Institute of Police Policy at Central Police University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with