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
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
RSS