With an increasing number of Chinese infiltration and espionage incidents and the flouting of military discipline in the past few years, lawmakers from across the political spectrum have called on the Ministry of National Defense to reinstate military trials. The ministry says that discussions of whether to reinstate the system of court martial are ongoing.
Minister of National Defense Chiu Kuo-cheng (邱國正) has said that since it took great efforts to abolish the system in the first place, the ministry would need to further review the matter before it could be reinstated.
Alternatives methods could make up for the shortcomings of the amendments to the Military Trial Act (軍事審判法) in 2013, which stripped the military of its power to prosecute and punish its own personnel during peacetime, Chiu said.
He also said that military and civilian prosecution systems have advantages and disadvantages.
Compared with military trials, a defendant in a civilian court receives a more impartial and objective trial, but the length of the trial could be quite long, to the point that some soldiers or suspects involved in a case might have already left the armed services before a verdict is delivered.
As the proposal requires further research, military trials would not be reinstated immediately.
Chiu’s dilemma is understandable, but his remark of taking the middle course was less than wise. As the public is fully aware that every sector has its own obligations and stances, Chiu only has to speak as someone with a professional military background and leave the assessment and appraisal of a proposal to his superiors.
As China increases its military presence in the Indo-Pacific region and ratchets up pressure on Taiwan, there are no other alternatives on the table to make up for the abolition of military trials, or else Chiu would not have been in such a tight spot. In this way, Chiu has no choice but to give the proposal a thorough review.
Hu Wen-chi is former vice chairman of the KMT’s Culture and Communications Committee.
Translated by Rita Wang
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
After the coup in Burma in 2021, the country’s decades-long armed conflict escalated into a full-scale war. On one side was the Burmese army; large, well-equipped, and funded by China, supported with weapons, including airplanes and helicopters from China and Russia. On the other side were the pro-democracy forces, composed of countless small ethnic resistance armies. The military junta cut off electricity, phone and cell service, and the Internet in most of the country, leaving resistance forces isolated from the outside world and making it difficult for the various armies to coordinate with one another. Despite being severely outnumbered and
RSS