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
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
Today is Feb. 28, a day that Taiwan associates with two tragic historical memories. The 228 Incident, which started on Feb. 28, 1947, began from protests sparked by a cigarette seizure that took place the day before in front of the Tianma Tea House in Taipei’s Datong District (大同). It turned into a mass movement that spread across Taiwan. Local gentry asked then-governor general Chen Yi (陳儀) to intervene, but he received contradictory orders. In early March, after Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) dispatched troops to Keelung, a nationwide massacre took place and lasted until May 16, during which many important intellectuals
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS