Print

Mail

wiki links

Contentious armed forces laws stalled in legislature

Cadets of Taiwan's air force academy march in formation. New laws designed to streamline the military's administration have met with resistance from military officials whose power would be deminished. by the laws. TAIPEI TIMES FILE PHOTO

When the the Defense Law (國邡法) and the Ministry of Defense Organizational Law (國邡部組織法) were originally passed in January last year, the bills were seen as milestones in a long-overdue reform of the military command structure.

Nearly a year-and-half later, the laws have yet to be implemented. This, defense officials and lawmakers say, is because of obstruction by legislators who are sympathetic to military officials opposed to the reforms.

When the two laws were passed by the legislature, they were scheduled to become effective by the end of February of this year. However, that date has been postponed until February next year as the legislature has failed to pass supplementary regulations which are needed to allow implementation of the two laws.

"The fault is not in the legislature, but in the military itself," said an official with Ministry of National Defense's personnel department. "There are quite a few people in the military who do not want to see the two laws enforced at all."

"Because of their fear of losing too much power, the military's executive system has sought help from some lawmakers. These lawmakers were asked to obstruct the passage of the supplementary regulations."

A defense ministry legal affairs official

This opposition has a lot to do with the spirit of the two laws, which would bring about key reforms that stretch all the way to the chief of the general staff and the defense minister. When the laws are implemented, the chief of the general staff will become chief of staff to the minister of defense.

Currently the chief of the general staff is more powerful than the defense minister, as he answers only to the president.

This organizational mismatch has made the defense minister a figurehead in the military command structure, yet also the very person who is required to answer inquiries from lawmakers. In most cases, however, the chief of the general staff is better able to answer those questions.

The main goal of the legislation is to bring the operation of the military under one unified system led by the defense minister.

Foot-dragging by the military raises an important question: Why would the chief of the general staff give away this power?

The implementation of the two laws will cause the military's executive system to lose much of its de facto power within the government.

Moreover, under the laws, the executive system's five principal organizational bodies -- cryptically named J-1, J-2, J-3, J-4, and J-5 -- are scheduled to be downgraded, because the defense ministry will take over most of their functions.

These five staff offices are responsible for personnel (J-1), intelligence (J-2), operations (J-3), logistics (J-4) and planning (J-5).

The legislature's National Defense Committee downgraded the five staff offices because of overlapping functions between those offices and their still uncreated counterparts in the defense ministry.

This transfer of power is opposed by the military's executive system, which insists that the five staff offices should remain unchanged.

However, this particular point in the new law is only one bone of contention between the military's executive and its administrative systems.

A defense ministry legal affairs official has accused the chief of staff of colluding with lawmakers to deliberately stall the passage of the supplementary regulations needed to implement the laws.

"Because of their fear of losing too much power, the military's executive system has sought help from some lawmakers," the official said. "These lawmakers were asked to obstruct the passage of the supplementary regulations."

With the help of these lawmakers -- who represent all three major political parties -- the implementation of the the two laws have been effectively blocked through filibustering and the creation of resolutions which are considered to be unattainable.

For example, on May 17 the legislature's defense committee adopted the following resolutions: 1) the candidate for the planned armament bureau's directorship should be appointed within three months, and 2) a team comprised of civil scholars, military officials and lawmakers should be set up to assess the enforcement of the two laws.

Due to these various difficulties, chances for the passage of the supplementary regulations before the end of the current legislative session are negligible.

Still, the supplementary regulations won't likely pass any time soon.

"The military is still bent on creating an agency authorized by the new laws -- the reserve mobilization command.

"The new agency will have an unlicensed structure," said a legislative aide to DPP lawmaker and defense committee member Liang Mu-yang (梁牧養). "It will make the military a laughing stock if the public knows it has established [this agency] without any support of law."

However, the military seems to have no other choice but to establish the agency before the supporting laws become effective.
This story has been viewed 2406 times.