Given the strong possibility that China could invade Taiwan, the Presidential Office has formulated an “armed forces realignment plan to strengthen our all-out national defense.”
Having been discussed and finalized at a high-level national security meeting, the plan is to be submitted to the Legislative Yuan via the Executive Yuan.
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislative caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) said that after the Executive Yuan had approved the bill, it would pass it on to the Legislative Yuan for approval.
As for whether the approval procedure should be changed to include deliberation, that is a matter of legislative procedure, and depends on the opinions of all political parties.
However, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Tseng Ming-chung (曾銘宗) has said that this is a political maneuver on the part of the DPP, President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) government and Ker himself.
Tseng said executive orders issued by ministries normally come into effect immediately, and that 99 percent of such cases have been processed by approval.
He said that only on the issues of allowing imports of food from Japan’s Fukushima Prefecture and US pork from pigs dosed with the feed additive ractopamine had the opposition parties, out of concern for food safety, demanded a change of procedure from approval to deliberation.
Tseng said that if the DPP still wants the Legislative Yuan, including opposition parties, to endorse the proposal, it means that the DPP caucus does not support the Ministry of the Interior’s actions.
However, the political maneuvering that the conscription case really reveals is that of the KMT.
Many people suspect that the DPP’s losses in the local elections on Nov. 26 last year had something to do with the government’s plan to extend mandatory military service to one year, and that the KMT wants to press home its advantage by letting the DPP take all the blame, in the hopes that this will help it beat the DPP in next year’s presidential election.
The problem with this is that, although political parties can be expected to act according to their electoral considerations, legislators also have a responsibility to the nation’s citizens. KMT legislators might oppose the reinstatement of one-year conscription, but they should state their reasons clearly and be accountable to the public for what they do in the legislature.
The reinstatement of one-year conscription is, like taxation, an act that deprives or restricts citizens’ rights, and as such, it must be defined by law. Under existing laws, extending the length of mandatory military service from four months back to one year must be done by executive order, but if the Executive Yuan sends such a proposal to the Legislative Yuan, should lawmakers deliberate it?
To use an example from history, the English parliament repeatedly wrangled with the king over the power of taxation, and eventually won the right to legislate on taxation. This shows that the power of taxation should not be delegated to the executive branch.
As time went by, the English parliament delegated certain powers of taxation to the government, such as adjusting the rate of indirect taxation, on condition that parliament could exercise a certain degree of supervision.
The English parliament also stipulated in the 1689 Bill of Rights that “the raising or keeping [of] a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against [the] law.”
In so doing, it deprived the king of the right to create a standing army.
The reinstatement of one-year mandatory military service should therefore be monitored and examined by the legislature. If the Legislative Yuan could deliberate the issue of US pork imports, how can the conscription proposal, which is a matter of life and death for the nation, and will inevitably restrict citizens’ freedom, not likewise be subject to deliberation?
If the KMT thinks that it should not, it must stand up in the Legislative Yuan and clearly state the reasons for its opposition. The KMT keeps saying that it wants peace, but it should also state its proposals for achieving peace, because many people fear that the KMT will sell Taiwan down the river.
Furthermore, to seek political power without accountability runs contrary to the principle of political responsibility.
Chang Cheng-shuh is a former chair of Kainan University’s Department of Law.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS