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.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath