The Act Governing the Administrative Impartiality of Public Officials (公務人員行政中立法) was passed by the legislature in May and promulgated by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) on June 10. The Act prohibits research fellows in public academic institutions from engaging in politics to support or oppose political parties, political organizations or candidates for public office.
Meanwhile, the legislature passed a resolution requiring that the Ministry of Education submit a bill to the legislature subjecting faculty in public universities to a similar ban.
With the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) dominating the legislature and the Democratic Progressive Party neglecting its legislative duties, legislation restricting the political rights of academics and teachers has been passed and promulgated by a president who is not paying attention. This shows that the KMT has been going against democratic trends since regaining power.
Article 9 is the core of the Act. It prohibits public officials from participating in political activities. The text of the article severely infringes upon the basic civil right to engage in politics when it states that public servants must not participate in political activities in support of or opposition to political parties, other political organizations or political candidates.
The political party is a key mechanism in a democracy, yet the article deprives public servants and academics of their right to be political. On the surface, the legislation merely places restrictions on academics who support or oppose parties or candidates, but in reality it forbids almost all political comment and activity by academics. What kind of politics is disconnected from political parties?
Activities prohibited by the article include hosting rallies, launching parades and initiating petitions, placing advertisements bearing the names and titles of academics in the mass media, stumping for candidates, joining marches and soliciting votes.
Since June 10, research fellows at Academia Sinica and staff of museums and libraries at all levels have been prohibited from participating in any such activity. In future, the Examination Yuan and the Cabinet could widen the prohibition even further.
The Act adopts different standards for other professionals. For instance, department chairs at private universities are allowed to do what their counterparts at public universities cannot. Research fellows at Academia Sinica are prohibited from doing what university professors can do. The same applies to public school staff, who cannot do what professors are allowed to do.
Implementing legislation to reduce political rights for members of public academic institutions but not for their private counterparts shows just how unnecessary it is.
For example, a department chair at a private university can launch a petition and collect signatures to criticize a political party, but it would be illegal for public university department chairs to do so.
I have participated in many signature campaigns over the years, but I am not allowed to now because I work at Academia Sinica. My old colleagues in the university system can still do so, at least before the Ministry of Education decides to extend “administrative impartiality” to faculty.
The Examination Yuan proposed the Act. The first version was filled with many unreasonable regulations, but the legislature then allowed each legislator to attach more unreasonable conditions. The Examination Yuan had proposed that the Act cover impartiality of “research fellows with administrative duties at public academic institutions,” but legislators proposed that this also cover “research fellows at public academic institutions.” Surprisingly, it was passed.
After examining each article of the Act, I found half of the articles to be problematic. It is astonishing how careless the legislature can be when drafting laws.
During the Martial Law era, Academia Sinica research fellows and department chairs and college deans at public universities were allowed to harshly criticize the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國).
Since June 10, they have been prohibited from doing so, and after Ma claims the KMT chairmanship, they will not be able to criticize him either!
The administrative impartiality Act reflects the anti-democratic nature of the KMT, which holds all the reins of government. The situation is even worse now than during the Martial Law era because this Act was implemented in the guise of democracy.
Chiu Hei-yuan is a research fellow at the Institute of Sociology at Academia Sinica.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS