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
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
The central bank has launched a redesign of the New Taiwan dollar banknotes, prompting questions from Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — “Are we not promoting digital payments? Why spend NT$5 billion on a redesign?” Many assume that cash will disappear in the digital age, but they forget that it represents the ultimate trust in the system. Banknotes do not become obsolete, they do not crash, they cannot be frozen and they leave no record of transactions. They remain the cleanest means of exchange in a free society. In a fully digitized world, every purchase, donation and action leaves behind data.
RSS