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
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Eating at a breakfast shop the other day, I turned to an old man sitting at the table next to mine. “Hey, did you hear that the Legislative Yuan passed a bill to give everyone NT$10,000 [US$340]?” I said, pointing to a newspaper headline. The old man cursed, then said: “Yeah, the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] canceled the NT$100 billion subsidy for Taiwan Power Co and announced they would give everyone NT$10,000 instead. “Nice. Now they are saying that if electricity prices go up, we can just use that cash to pay for it,” he said. “I have no time for drivel like
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) reportedly told the EU’s top diplomat that China does not want Russia to lose in Ukraine, because the US could shift its focus to countering Beijing. Wang made the comment while meeting with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas on July 2 at the 13th China-EU High-Level Strategic Dialogue in Brussels, the South China Morning Post and CNN reported. Although contrary to China’s claim of neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, such a frank remark suggests Beijing might prefer a protracted war to keep the US from focusing on
RSS