After the plagiarism scandals and allegations in the run-up to last month’s local elections, the hot topic ahead of a by-election in Taipei’s third electoral district is the issue of “black gold,” that is, bribery and affiliation with criminals. The Cabinet and the governing Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) have proposed draft amendments to the Civil Servants Election and Recall Act (公職人員選舉罷免法) and the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election and Recall Act (總統副總統選舉罷免法) to bar those with criminal records for certain crimes from running for office. The public, tired of inter-party mudslinging, would surely welcome a “clean election.”
According to Article 26 of the act, people who have committed and been sentenced for the crimes of insurrection, foreign aggression, corruption or interfering with others’ voting rights through threats of violence or other illegal means are barred from standing in elections, but those convicted of other crimes are allowed to run for office, after serving their prison term.
The Cabinet and the DPP have drafted amendments to ban people convicted of offenses related to organized crime, money laundering, firearms, drugs or vote-buying from running in national and local elections. Those convicted of national security breaches, including contravening the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) or the National Security Act (國家安全法), and felonies with sentences of more than 10 years in prison would also be barred.
It is hoped that the amendment will take effect before the 2024 legislative and presidential elections.
People convicted of certain crimes are already prohibited from being candidates in legislation specific to those crimes, for example the Money Laundering Control Act (洗錢防制法) and the Organized Crime Prevention Act (組織犯罪防制條例). The proposed amendments would set higher ethical standards for all potential national and local public officials.
Eligibility to run in an election is protected by the Constitution, and convicts deserve a chance to reintegrate into society after serving their sentence. So expanding election regulations should be a rigorous process and more consensus should be sought from the public. Besides, commitment to holding a “clean election” by political parties would be a more crucial factor or, more precisely perhaps, a challenge.
Local elections have been influenced by “black” — gangsters and organized criminals — and “gold” — bribery — in schemes used to foster local factions to further consolidate the central dominance of state since the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) first arrived in Taiwan. Both major political parties, the KMT and the DPP, have said that their election nomination regulations are already stricter than the law. However, civil groups have said that, among the 1,677 county and city councilor candidates in last month’s local elections, 195 had been convicted of crimes, including 66 nominated by the KMT and 36 by the DPP. Many of these candidates were elected with a large number of votes in their favor, mostly from local political factions.
Political parties often sacrifice ethics on the altar of political gain. In 2007, the KMT revised its primary regulations overnight, lifting a ban on anyone who had been prosecuted from standing in an election so that then-Taipei mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who had been indicted on charges of embezzling his mayoral allowance fund, could run for the 2008 presidential election.
In the local council speaker and deputy speaker elections, several candidates supported by political parties or alliances have been accused of being in gangs. While criticizing its opponents for plagiarizing their theses, the KMT chose candidates who had had their degree withdrawn due to plagiarism or were listed as gangsters to run for city council speaker.
Legislation alone cannot prevent politicians from using camouflage or sophistry, neither can it guarantee that elections are clean and ethical. It is the responsibility of voters to choose officials who are wise and capable. Otherwise, a black cloud will continue to loom over democracy and Taiwan’s elections.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS