Independence advocates on Monday gathered outside the Legislative Yuan in Taipei to demand that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Charles Chen (陳以信) and KMT Taipei City Councilor Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯) move forward on their proposal to amend the Military Service Act (兵役法) to require that women be subject to mandatory military service.
Taiwan Republic Office director Chilly Chen (陳峻涵), who attended the rally, said that female conscription would benefit gender-equality efforts and bolster the military.
The issue has been discussed for decades, and there are inevitably always arguments on both sides of whether conscription of women is sexist or whether it would improve gender equality.
An ETtoday poll conducted in October last year showed that about half of male and female respondents supported gender-neutral conscription.
There are already women in the military, including female pilots who are trained to fly each of the country’s main fighter jets. Given that women have the choice of serving in the military, and their participation appears to be largely welcome, how would female conscription improve gender equality?
Swiss politician Chantal Gallade has said that male-only conscription is discriminatory to both sexes, and in February 2019, a US federal judge in Texas ruled that male-only conscription was unconstitutional given that former restrictions in the US on female military service no longer apply.
Men in Taiwan and South Korea have often raised the issue of conscription in discussing gender equality, saying that women do not understand certain issues because they have not served in the military. However, frequent reports of sexual harassment in the Israeli military — where women are included in the draft — suggest that female conscription would not automatically end discriminatory behavior.
Groups such as the Norwegian Association for Women’s Rights have also opposed the idea that female conscription would improve gender equality.
“Gender equality implies first and foremost that women and men should have the same human rights and fundamental freedoms ... but women and men do not have to be alike or do the same things to be equal,” the International Alliance of Women wrote in a newsletter last year.
In South Korea, many women have expressed a desire to see female conscription enacted.
“We need to fight together, men and women. If there’s a war, we can’t just stay home and live in fear,” a student at a girls’ high school in Seoul was quoted as saying in a Sept. 18, 2017, Washington Post article.
Another student, at a private university in Seoul, said that “women lack a basic understanding of the country’s military and defense system because the draft applies only to men,” adding that she wanted women drafted and subject to training that is appropriate for them.
“Women have the same or even better abilities than men,” the article said, citing comments from South Korean women. “Shouldn’t that mean women, like men, should serve the country and receive the same compensation and benefits from the government?”
The Ministry of National Defense on Tuesday said it was expanding the scope of reserve forces to counter the increasing threat from China. It stands to reason that including female reservists would greatly benefit those efforts. There is also an argument that as equal citizens of the country, women have an equal responsibility for its defense.
Greater female participation in the military warrants more discussion, but that discussion must address protecting women from harassment and discrimination, and adapting training to take account of the physical and intellectual abilities of all conscripts — male and female. Lawmakers should deliberate the issue with the assistance of experts, and invite public participation through a referendum.
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Most countries are commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II with condemnations of militarism and imperialism, and commemoration of the global catastrophe wrought by the war. On the other hand, China is to hold a military parade. According to China’s state-run Xinhua news agency, Beijing is conducting the military parade in Tiananmen Square on Sept. 3 to “mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II and the victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression.” However, during World War II, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) had not yet been established. It
Much like the first round on July 26, Saturday’s second wave of recall elections — this time targeting seven Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers — also failed. With all 31 KMT legislators who faced recall this summer secure in their posts, the mass recall campaign has come to an end. The outcome was unsurprising. Last month’s across-the-board defeats had already dealt a heavy blow to the morale of recall advocates and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), while bolstering the confidence of the KMT and its ally the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). It seemed a foregone conclusion that recalls would falter, as
A recent critique of former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s speech in Taiwan (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” by Sasha B. Chhabra, Aug. 12, page 8) seriously misinterpreted his remarks, twisting them to fit a preconceived narrative. As a Taiwanese who witnessed his political rise and fall firsthand while living in the UK and was present for his speech in Taipei, I have a unique vantage point from which to say I think the critiques of his visit deliberately misinterpreted his words. By dwelling on his personal controversies, they obscured the real substance of his message. A clarification is needed to
RSS