On Thursday, the Executive Yuan approved 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). The amendments would prohibit people who have been convicted of the following crimes from running for office: national security crimes, major offenses related to organized crime, bribery, money laundering, firearms, drugs and vote buying.
Advocated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), the “anti-black bills,” in addition to addressing accusations of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) gangster activities, try to correct government officials’ behavior and regulate public offices.
Some have opposed the anti-black bills, claiming that such amendments are unconstitutional.
MISUNDERSTANDING
They must have misunderstood an interpretation of the Constitution. For example, in 2004, the Constitutional Court, then known as the Council of Grand Justices, ruled that an article in the Road Traffic Management and Penalty Act (道路交通管理處罰條例) that bans people who have been convicted of a crime from working as taxi drivers is constitutional.
Without passing the anti-black amendments, qualifying as a taxi driver would be a more rigorous process than qualifying as an elected official — a person in control of public institutions and responsible for a massive amount of taxpayers’ money.
LOOPHOLES
A legal system with such loopholes is completely unreasonable. So, how could the amendments be considered unconstitutional?
Constitutional Interpretation No. 584 states: “In considering the constitutionality of a limitation on the freedom of occupation, the standard of review varies with the content of the limitation. The legislature is allowed to set forth proper restrictions on the practice of an occupation such as its manner, time, place, target customers or content if such restrictions are necessary for the public interest.”
“Where the legislature intends to regulate the subjective qualifications necessary for choosing an occupation — such as knowledge and competency, age, physical condition, or moral standards — there must be a more important public interest than what is required for restrictions on the practice of an occupation, and the restrictions must be necessary for the achievement of such public interest,” it says.
Therefore, the Grand Justices declared that the exclusion of taxi drivers who have been convicted of specific crimes is constitutional.
As the amendments to the two acts propose banning ex-convicts of major crimes from running for office, such requirements of the “subjective qualifications necessary for choosing an occupation” are in compliance with the intent of Constitutional Interpretation No. 584.
PUBLIC INTEREST
For the sake of public interest, it is legitimate for the legislature to impose appropriate restrictions.
By amending the two acts to exclude certain ex-convicts from running in national or local elections, those individuals are prevented from trying to “cleanse” themselves by running for office.
The proposed amendments are meant for the public good, and they would regulate the quality of governmental officials. The anti-black bills are by all means constitutional.
Huang Di-ying is a lawyer and chairman of the Taiwan Forever Association.
Translated by Eddy Chang
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS