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
Chinese agents often target Taiwanese officials who are motivated by financial gain rather than ideology, while people who are found guilty of spying face lenient punishments in Taiwan, a researcher said on Tuesday. While the law says that foreign agents can be sentenced to death, people who are convicted of spying for Beijing often serve less than nine months in prison because Taiwan does not formally recognize China as a foreign nation, Institute for National Defense and Security Research fellow Su Tzu-yun (蘇紫雲) said. Many officials and military personnel sell information to China believing it to be of little value, unaware that
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
The central bank and the US Department of the Treasury on Friday issued a joint statement that both sides agreed to avoid currency manipulation and the use of exchange rates to gain a competitive advantage, and would only intervene in foreign-exchange markets to combat excess volatility and disorderly movements. The central bank also agreed to disclose its foreign-exchange intervention amounts quarterly rather than every six months, starting from next month. It emphasized that the joint statement is unrelated to tariff negotiations between Taipei and Washington, and that the US never requested the appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar during the
RSS