Former army corporal Hung Chung-chiu’s (洪仲丘) death in 2013 sparked public outrage as people were appalled by the inappropriate discipline in the military.
Hundreds of thousands of protesters took to the streets with the intention of making the management of the nation’s army safer and more efficient.
Then-president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) responded to the growing public anger by abolishing the Military Trial Act (軍事審判法) in a rush.
The US, leader of the world’s democracies, still has military tribunals, because military discipline is the root of military power and the survival of a nation.
Perhaps for Ma, it is better for Taiwan to not have the ability to defend itself, so that he can achieve the “peaceful unification” that he desires.
However, Taiwanese should understand that peace requires solid war preparation. This discourages aggressors, and an important part of this is military discipline.
Over the past few years, Taiwanese have gradually come to realize that they were too quick to call for the abolition of military trials — which had nothing to do with Hung’s death — and that the lack of it has done great damage to the nation’s security.
The US has also repeatedly reminded Taiwan of this danger.
A report titled Latest feasibility evaluation of the restoration of the Military Trial Act was released by the Ministry of National Defense, with Minister of National Defense Chiu Kuo-cheng (邱國正) expressing public support for the restoration of the Military Trial Act.
Most politicians in Taiwan have been silent when it comes to military trials for fear of offending Hung’s supporters.
However, the international situation is changing and the issue of Taiwan’s defense is becoming even more important.
It is not only the Taiwanese who are attaching more importance to bolstering the nation’s defense capabilities. Neighboring allied countries are watching Taiwan’s performance as well.
National security should not be sacrificed for the sake of politics.
Hung’s case happened more than 10 years ago. There is no reason for amendments to be met with much criticism or to be called a rushed policy reversal.
The Formosa Republican Association, of which I am the chairman, has held a seminar for the military affairs group of the “Taiwanese warrior promotion program,” inviting a number of retired generals and experts to discuss how to strengthen Taiwan’s defense capabilities. Once again, the experts brought up the significance of restoring military trials.
Today, as technology develops and diversity in society grows, ensuring proper military discipline is also becoming increasingly more difficult.
Taiwan’s judiciary is plagued by its own problems and its workload has been heavy due to numerous fraud cases. As a result, trials often span a very long period.
As the US continues to tighten its containment of China, Beijing’s urgency to annex the nation has increased as well. Chinese have even infiltrated the military.
Given these factors, the need to reinstate the Military Trial Act only grows stronger.
Tommy Lin is the chairman of the Formosa Republican Association.
Translated by Eddy Chang
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS