Tai Li-shen Case

Between 2005 and 2016, Tai Li-shen worked at the Hsinchu County Animal Disease Control Center. Like most civil servants who study diligently to pass the civil service examinations, he believed his life would finally be stable. However, when he discovered that his superiors repeatedly pressured him to falsify accounts and use public funds for private purposes, his inner sense of guilt began to weigh heavily on him. Driven by his conscience, he reported himself to the Agency Against Corruption of the Ministry of Justice through the Department of Civil Service Ethics (政風室) and provided compelling evidence to assist prosecutors and police in their investigation, allowing the corrupt complicit network to be exposed and subjected to judicial prosecution.

The judge presiding over Tai Li-shen's corruption case, recognizing that he had bravely reported the offense without succumbing to pressure, exempted him from personal criminal liability. However, after the judgment became final, Tai Li-shen was dismissed from his position in 2016 by the Hsinchu County Government—with a ban on "never being re-employed"—solely because of this "judgment of exemption from punishment." Having exhausted all judicial remedies, Tai Li-shen ultimately could not alter this single order of dismissal with a permanent ban on re-employment.......

To foster the sound institutional development of the state and build a more honest and efficient government, the state has an obligation to provide necessary protection to civil servants who bravely report corrupt acts. Only through whistleblowing by civil servants within the system can inside information be exposed, illegal acts prevented from continuing, and unsuitable or untrustworthy civil servants be weeded out.

Suggested Amendments to the Draft Whistleblower Protection Act

JRF Proposed Provisions	Executive Yuan Draft	Explanation
Article 13: Where a whistleblower is a principal offender or accomplice in the crimes involved in the whistleblowing content and satisfies the requirements of Article 3 and Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Witness Protection Act, their punishment may be mitigated or exempted pursuant to Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the same Act, notwithstanding the restrictions on offenses listed in Article 2 of said Act. 　　When an agency accepts an application for re-employment in public service filed by a whistleblower whose punishment has been exempted by a final court judgment pursuant to the preceding paragraph, it may do so without being subject to the restrictions of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4 of the Civil Service Employment Act.	Article 13: Where a whistleblower is a principal offender or accomplice in the crimes involved in the whistleblowing content and satisfies the requirements of Article 3 and Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Witness Protection Act, their punishment may be mitigated or exempted pursuant to Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the same Act, notwithstanding the restrictions on offenses listed in Article 2 of said Act. 　　When an agency accepts an application for re-employment in public service filed by a whistleblower whose punishment has been exempted by a final court judgment pursuant to the preceding paragraph, it may do so without being subject to the restrictions of Article 28, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4 of the Civil Service Employment Act.	1. If a whistleblower appears to testify and complies with the provisions of Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Witness Protection Act, the offenses involved shall not be restricted by the offenses listed in Article 2 of the Witness Protection Act, and they may also enjoy the lenient treatment of criminal punishment mitigation or exemption. In consideration of Article 11 of the Act for Prevention and Suppression of Sexual Exploitation of Children and Youths and Article 23 of the Human Trafficking Prevention Act, Paragraph 1 is hereby enacted. Furthermore, if a whistleblower is convicted by a judgment for acts as a principal offender or accomplice, it shall not affect their right to enjoy the protection under Articles 7 to 10. 2. Pursuant to Article 28, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4 of the Civil Service Employment Act, which provides that "Anyone who has any of the following circumstances shall not be appointed as a civil servant: ... IV. Having previously served in public office and committed an act of corruption, upon a final guilty judgment or being a wanted person whose case remains unsettled," Paragraph 2 is hereby enacted to encourage civil servants who are principal offenders or accomplices to bravely report wrongdoing, and to safeguard their right to apply for re-employment in public service after dismissal. This paragraph only provides the whistleblower with the right to apply for re-employment in public service; as for the receiving agency of employment, it may still exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis to review and decide whether to approve re-employment in public service.
Article 19: This Act shall take effect one year after promulgation. Whistleblowers whose punishment has been exempted by a final court judgment prior to the promulgation and enforcement of this Act and who apply for re-employment in public service within one year after the promulgation and enforcement of this Act shall apply mutatis mutandis the provisions of Article 13, Paragraph 2 of this Act.	Article 19: This Act shall take effect one year after promulgation.	1. It is explicitly stipulated that this Act shall take effect one year after promulgation, hence Paragraph 1 is enacted. 2. To ensure that whistleblowers whose punishment was exempted by a final court judgment prior to the amendment and enforcement of this Act receive equal protection under this Act, it is provided that those who apply for re-employment in public service within one year after the promulgation and enforcement of this Act shall apply mutatis mutandis the provisions of Article 13, Paragraph 2 of this Act, hence Paragraph 2 is enacted. 3. As for whistleblowers whose punishment was exempted by a final court judgment prior to the amendment and enforcement of this Act, if their application for re-employment in public service had already been rejected prior to the promulgation and enforcement of this Act, the administrative agency may revoke the original administrative disposition pursuant to Article 122 of the Administrative Procedure Act and subsequently make a lawful disposition pursuant to this Act; this is hereby explained for clarification.

Passage of the Whistleblower Protection Act at Third Reading in 2024

On December 27, 2024, the Legislative Yuan passed the Whistleblower Protection Act at its third reading, establishing the nation's first dedicated whistleblower protection legislation. In addition to government agencies, public-owned enterprises, and state-run enterprises, the scope of application of the newly passed law also extends to government-endowed foundations, invested enterprises, or business institutions announced by the Directorate-General of Personnel Administration (as of September 24, 2024, there were 351 foundations and 285 business groups).

Under the new law, aside from stipulating that punitive actions against whistleblowers are prohibited and that disclosing a whistleblower's identity is subject to criminal penalty, the provision stating that "whistleblowers are exempt from the restriction under the Civil Service Employment Act that 'persons with a final guilty corruption judgment cannot be appointed as civil servants'" has been dubbed the "Tai Li-shen Clause." However, because the new law is not retroactive, "the Tai Li-shen Clause does not apply to Tai Li-shen."

Related Reports

01Nov.
2019

Professor Lin Chih-hsiu: If the Bill Remains Flawed, Who in This Society Will Ever Step Forward to Be a Whistleblower Again?

Judicial Reform Foundation

First of all, I strongly support what Li-shen just said. During the drafting of the entire bill, I repeatedly suggested…

01Nov.
2019

Tai Li-shen: The "Tai Li-shen Clause" fails to protect me, forcing me to be a martyr and sacrifice myself

Taiwan Association for Judicial Reform

When I initially stepped forward to whistleblow, it was because I discovered that the agency's expense verification…

31Oct.
2019

Q&A on Paragraph 2, Article 19 of the Whistleblower Protection Act