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
The recent passing of Taiwanese actress Barbie Hsu (徐熙媛), known to many as “Big S,” due to influenza-induced pneumonia at just 48 years old is a devastating reminder that the flu is not just a seasonal nuisance — it is a serious and potentially fatal illness. Hsu, a beloved actress and cultural icon who shaped the memories of many growing up in Taiwan, should not have died from a preventable disease. Yet her death is part of a larger trend that Taiwan has ignored for too long — our collective underestimation of the flu and our low uptake of the
For Taipei, last year was a particularly dangerous period, with China stepping up coercive pressures on Taiwan amid signs of US President Joe Biden’s cognitive decline, which eventually led his Democratic Party to force him to abandon his re-election campaign. The political drift in the US bred uncertainty in Taiwan and elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific region about American strategic commitment and resolve. With America deeply involved in the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, the last thing Washington wanted was a Taiwan Strait contingency, which is why Biden invested in personal diplomacy with China’s dictator Xi Jinping (習近平). The return of
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a cornerstone of US foreign policy, advancing not only humanitarian aid but also the US’ strategic interests worldwide. The abrupt dismantling of USAID under US President Donald Trump ‘s administration represents a profound miscalculation with dire consequences for global influence, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. By withdrawing USAID’s presence, Washington is creating a vacuum that China is eager to fill, a shift that will directly weaken Taiwan’s international position while emboldening Beijing’s efforts to isolate Taipei. USAID has been a crucial player in countering China’s global expansion, particularly in regions where
Actress Barbie Hsu (徐熙媛), known affectionately as “Big S,” recently passed away from pneumonia caused by the flu. The Mandarin word for the flu — which translates to “epidemic cold” in English — is misleading. Although the flu tends to spread rapidly and shares similar symptoms with the common cold, its name easily leads people to underestimate its dangers and delay seeking medical treatment. The flu is an acute viral respiratory illness, and there are vaccines to prevent its spread and strengthen immunity. This being the case, the Mandarin word for “influenza” used in Taiwan should be renamed from the misleading