On Monday, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators proposed an amendment that would prohibit military personnel from presenting viewpoints that are not politically neutral. If the amendment is approved, those in the armed forces who criticize the government on the Internet could be prosecuted.
However, pan-blue legislators said that the proposed amendment violates the constitutional right to free speech.
If the proposed amendment to Article 6 of the National Defense Act (
In addition, military personnel would not be permitted to chair, initiate or participate in political gatherings or parades.
Regardless of whether or not the proposed amendment is passed, it will certainly push forward the debate on the limits of freedom of speech.
The amendment was proposed to correct incidents in which military personnel allegedly joined the anti-President Chen Shui-bian (
In one incident, Major Tung Haw-cheng (董華正), a military instructor at Taipei Senior High School in Shilin, was detained by the Military High Court Prosecutors' Office and charged with treason after he appeared in an anti-Chen protest and said that "once war breaks out, the guns will be directed inwards."
Opposition lawmakers suggested that the Ministry of National Defense is cracking down on all those in the military who support the anti-Chen campaign.
The pan-blue politicians also said that extending the ban to expression on the Internet would violate the right to freedom of speech.
The central issue of the matter is whether members of the armed services should enjoy the same right to express themselves as the general public.
As Article 138 of the Constitution states, "The land, sea, and air forces of the country shall be above personal, regional and party affiliations."
This specifically prohibits military personnel from espousing political stances.
Given the spirit and substance of Article 138, it is absolutely reasonable to prohibit servicemen and women from expressing political opinions.
It is also legitimate to limit the freedom of speech in the military through the proposed amendment to the National Defense Act. Armed forces the world over do not -- and cannot afford to -- tolerate dissent in the ranks.
If members of the military were able to selectively obey orders depending on their political stances, the armed forces would descend into chaos.
The restrictions in the proposed amendment are both necessary and appropriate. If military personnel were allowed to express their political views freely, this would violate Article 139 of the Constitution, which states that "No political party and individual shall make use of armed forces as an instrument in the struggle for political power."
In contrast to the mass movement against former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, the anti-Chen campaign was conducted according to the law.
The international community took note of this and saluted the nation's increased democratic maturity.
The striking difference between the Thai campaign and the anti-Chen campaign is that Thailand's military leaders staged a coup. After the military got involved, Thaksin immediately lost power and martial law was declared, with the result that Thailand can no longer be considered a democracy.
The proposed amendment to limit the political expression of those serving in the armed forces is correct and necessary if the nation is to safeguard its democracy.
With its passing of Hong Kong’s new National Security Law, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) continues to tighten its noose on Hong Kong. Gone is the broken 1997 promise that Hong Kong would have free, democratic elections by 2017. Gone also is any semblance that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) plays the long game. All the CCP had to do was hold the fort until 2047, when the “one country, two systems” framework would end and Hong Kong would rejoin the “motherland.” It would be a “demonstration-free” event. Instead, with the seemingly benevolent velvet glove off, the CCP has revealed its true iron
At the end of last month, Paraguayan Ambassador to Taiwan Marcial Bobadilla Guillen told a group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators that his president had decided to maintain diplomatic ties with Taiwan, despite pressure from the Chinese government and local businesses who would like to see a switch to Beijing. This followed the Paraguayan Senate earlier this year voting against a proposal to establish ties with China in exchange for medical supplies. This constituted a double rebuke of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) diplomatic agenda in a six-month span from Taiwan’s only diplomatic ally in South America. Last year, Tuvalu rejected an
US President Donald Trump’s administration on Friday last week announced it would impose sanctions on the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, a vast paramilitary organization that is directly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and has been linked to human rights violations against Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang. The sanctions follow US travel bans against other Xinjiang officials and the passage of the US Hong Kong Autonomy Act, which authorizes targeted sanctions against mainland Chinese and Hong Kong officials, in response to Beijing’s imposition of national security legislation on the territory. The sanctions against the corps would be implemented
US President Donald Trump on Thursday issued executive orders barring Americans from conducting business with WeChat owner Tencent Holdings and ByteDance, the Beijing-based owner of popular video-sharing app TikTok. The orders are to take effect 45 days after they were signed, which is Sept. 20. The orders accuse WeChat of helping the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) review and remove content that it considers to be politically sensitive, and of using fabricated news to benefit itself. The White House has accused TikTok of collecting users’ information, location data and browsing histories, which could be used by the Chinese government, and pose