Rumor has it that, to filter out the individuals responsible for leaks, the Taipei City Government intends to ask private companies to help it carry out lie detector tests on its public servants. Above and beyond whether you think the city government should be acting as a judicial authority, this practice is sure to be seriously damaging to the rule of law and human rights.
According to Article 3 of the Act of the Establishment and Management of the Government Employee Ethics Units and Officers (政風機構人員設置管理條例), “the term ‘Government Employee Ethics Units’ referred to in this act means the various units in charge of the government employee ethics businesses at central and local organs and state-owned enterprises.”
According to Article 4, these units are not only in charge of handling corruption and malfeasance cases within the central and local governments, but are also responsible for safeguarding confidential information. However, since these “Government Employee Ethics Officers” are not “judicial police officers” — as defined by Article 229 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (刑事訴訟法) — charged with the responsibility of investigating offenses, they cannot employ forceful investigation methods in corruption and malfeasance cases, but when violations against the Criminal Code occur, investigations should be carried out by Agency Against Corruption officers, who are also judicial police officers.
Hence, when public servants in the Taipei City Government are suspected of leaking confidential information, investigations should be conducted by the city’s Department of Government Ethics.
However, it is disputable whether the department can legally inspect e-mails, social network messages or other correspondence records of the city’s public servants, as personal e-mails and messages are private information; inspection can only be done with warrants issued by judges. Even if the inspected items are communications records and information about the communications users, according to Article 11 of the Communication Security and Surveillance Act (通訊保障及監察法), only when an offense punishable by imprisonment of more than three years has taken place, and a warrant is applied by the prosecutors and issued by the judges, can an inspection be carried out. Hence, without a warrant, the inspection of personal data by the Government Employee Ethics Unit, which is not a judicial police department, is a violation of the law.
As for investigations into corruption cases, it is the responsibility of the Government Employee Ethics Unit. If the Taipei City Government’s Department of Government Ethics is incapable of finding the sources of the leaks, so be it; but to delegate this task to a private company and let it conduct lie detection tests not only lacks a legal basis, it also violates the principle that states core state powers should not be delegated to the private sector.
Moreover, there are no certification systems for examiner qualifications, lie detector equipment, or the premises on which the tests are to be carried out. Hence, there is a question as to whether private lie detection companies have the requisite proficiency. In addition, there are no objective standards for the procedures, the questions and the evaluation of the results, making it impossible to review and repeat the tests. It is therefore questionable how scientific the process is.
When the government carries out lie detection tests on public servants, the government can say it has obtained permission from its employees, but everyone knows that whoever refuses to take the test is likely to become a primary suspect and be treated unfairly. How can this be considered voluntary? Even if the employees do agree to take the test, they are already seen as suspects before the tests are performed, so it is questionable whether the test operators can put their biases aside, or whether the employees can take the tests without being more anxious than they actually are. It is unlikely that a final assessment of test results would be reliable and not just a reflection of the subjectivity of the test operators, which lowers the credibility of the tests.
Deploying such methods might, perhaps, establish an authoritative status for people in power, but is likely to severely infringe on employees’ human rights, while stigmatizing public servants and displaying distrust, which, in turn, is likely to give people a negative impression about public institutions. As such, when lie detection tests are carried out in this manner, it is not a search for truth, but, in fact, little more than a means of intimidation.
Wu Ching-chin is an associate professor and chair of Aletheia University’s law department.
Translated by Ethan Zhan
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US