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
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS