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.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations