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
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
Prior to marrying a Taiwanese and moving to Taiwan, a Chinese woman, surnamed Zhang (張), used her elder sister’s identity to deceive Chinese officials and obtain a resident identity card in China. After marrying a Taiwanese, surnamed Chen (陳) and applying to move to Taiwan, Zhang continued to impersonate her sister to obtain a Republic of China ID card. She used the false identity in Taiwan for 18 years. However, a judge ruled that her case does not constitute forgery and acquitted her. Does this mean that — as long as a sibling agrees — people can impersonate others to alter, forge
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS