Talk:Conscription in Taiwan/Archive 1

Verification requested
If anyone has more info on the physical exam standards and how they are used to classify reserve service from active duty service it would be greatly appreceated. -Loren36 (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Service Options
I always thought alternative service (替代役) was longer than military service in Taiwan, that's how I edited the main consciption article. Was I wrong?

Alan
 * I'm not sure... according to a friend in alternative its 16 months. Still trying to verify the military part. NCA says its 16 months for military service as well. -Loren 09:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

David: Is it possible to avoid conscription because I am the main bread-winner in the family, or are there other any reasons that I can do so —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.228.21.253 (talk • contribs).

Re: Violations of the Geneva Conventions
I suggest that some information be added to the effect that military conscription in Taiwan is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Oct. 25, 1945 marked the beginning of the military occupation of Formosa and the Pescadores. In the post-war San Francisco Peace Treaty, the territorial sovereignty of these areas was not awarded to the Republic of China. Hence, Taiwan remains as occupied territory.

In this regard, paragraphs 1 and 4 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, (12 August 1949), Article 51 are relevant --

(1) The Occupying Power may not compel protected persons to serve in its armed or auxiliary forces. No pressure or propaganda which aims at securing voluntary enlistment is permitted.

(2) In no case shall requisition of labour lead to a mobilization of workers in an organization of a military or semi-military character. (GC, art. 51.)
 * If this has become an issue raised by anything other than an extreme fringe on the island and there are sources to back up this becoming an issue, then I am all for it. Otherwise, it should stay out because Wikipedia is not the place to promote fringe theories. (see the undue weight policy for more details.)Ngchen 05:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Definition of "draft dodging"
What exactly constitutes "draft dodging"? If an individual spends his time overseas during the period where he is to be drafted, is that considered "draft dodging"? I have a personal friend who is an ROC citizen, soon to be 19, and is an international student living in Australia, with somewhat limited English skills. He chooses to study at the Australian National University just so that he does not have to reside in Taiwan, in avoidance of the draft. He maintains that what he is doing is completely lawful. Does one have to reside within the ROC to be drafted, or is it firmly based on one's citizenship? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not a general discussion forum; see WP:TPG. That said, your question would need to be answered by someone with a knowledge of ROC law. I see that this page says, "Under the current Military Service Act, all male ROC citizens between the ages of 19 and 40 not classified as Overseas Chinese are considered to be of 'draft age' and are subject to conscription, including those possessing dual citizenship (though the ROC does recognise dual citizenship)." (italics added) I don't know how true that might be nor the classification requirements for "Overseas Chinese". You might ask at a ROC embassy. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I was referring to whether the details given in the article are factually accurate and/or specific enough. He is clearly not an Overseas Chinese, as he does not hold any citizenship other than ROC. And I was only using this particular individual as an example to prove my point. I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know WP:FORUM. I don't actually care about his outcome as it is none of my business. I was just mentioning that what he says is at conflict with what is in this article, and therefore, someone should check it up and make sure. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 05:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I responded to the content of your question without checking out your edit history. If you consider that a slight, I apologize for it. I didn't take your question as offering up a proven point calling part of the article into question, I took it as a request for information.


 * I'm not so sure that the individual whose circumstances you asked about is (as you say) "clearly not an Overseas Chinese", considering the info in the lead para of the article on that topic. It may of may not be easy to check that out, I haven't tried to check out whether the term "Overseas Chinese" would apply to this person within the meaning of that article on Conscription in the Republic of China - Eligibility to which I linked above, but I see that the answer to question #2 on the Q&A for Application for Overseas Compatriot Identity Certificate published by the Overseas Compatriot Affairs Commission, R.O.C (Taiwan) says:

"Overseas Compatriot Identity Certificates are issued pursuant to the Overseas Compatriot Identity Certification Act which applies to Republic of China¡ [hereinafter the ROC] nationals residing overseas. However, this does not apply to persons with Mainland China, Hong Kong or Macau residency status, or persons holding passports issued by Mainland China."


 * From that, I suspect that this person would be considered an "Overseas Chinese" within the meaning of that article which I referenced.


 * Looking at the final three paragraphs of Conscription in the Republic of China, I don't see a problem. I would infer from the info there that your exampled person would not be considered a draft dodger if he had obtained the required deferments and permissions described in the article section prior to leaving the country and if he did not stay outside of the country for longer than the period for which he had been given permission. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's fine, there's no need to apologise, I may have not made myself more clear. Regarding this person, he is not a "resident" of Australia, as he is here only on a Student Visa. Does that still mean that he is considered as an Overseas Compatriot by the ROC? If so, then that would mean that this would not be considered draft dodging, as stated by the article. What I am unsure about is whether or not that is so; he also claims that he has to provide evidence that he is engaging in tertiary studies in Australia to the ROC TECRO office. I cannot find any mention of a clause regarding overseas students anywhere, on Wikipedia or otherwise. Also, from the article, "more than 183 days in a two year period" - perhaps this is what determines whether a student has to fulfill a draft or not? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 06:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, the article does not assert that the person you have exampled would be considered a draft dodger by the ROC, presuming that he has obtained the requisite deferments and permissions and complied with their conditions.


 * As I understand the material on the Overseas Compatriot Affairs Commission site (which I have not read closely), status as an "Overseas Compatriot" in the eyes of the ROC involves physical presence in a country outside of the ROC, and is not determined by what sort of visa a person has for the country where he is present or by how that country may view his presence there. If I understand correctly, such a person would be an ROC citizen, would have his home residence in the ROC, would consider himself an ROC citizen and a citizen of no other country, but would be physically present in another country.


 * I see that this news article says "Overseas Chinese must still have a job in the countries and areas where they live, or be the spouse or lineal relative of such overseas Chinese, to apply for a tourist permit to visit Taiwan." I have the impression from that that persons classified as "Overseas Chinese" by the ROC govt would be persons who live and work outside of the ROC and who would consider themselves and would be considered by the ROC to be tourists if they visited the ROC. These would probably persons, and their famliy members, who hold citizenships in other countries, who consider themselves to be dual-nationals, and who the ROC govt considers to be sole ROC citizens, As I understand it, your exampled person would not hold nationality in the country where he is present, and would not be considered by the ROC govt to be an "Overseas Chinese".


 * The initial paragraph of this article seems to be speaking of "Overseas Chinese" as I've spoken of such persons above, the next two paragraphs seems to be speaking of persons who would be classified as "Overseas Compatriots" by the ROC Overseas Compatriot Affairs Commission. I'm not sure that I have that right, but that is how this seems to me. If that is the case, the article's Eligibility section should probably make the distinction between these two classes of persons clearer. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Draft Dodging?
I'm a dual citizen of both Taiwan and the U.S., soon to be 18 and have lived in the U.S. for most of my life. I don't speak Chinese and from what I understand, pursuing further education in the U.S. risks criminal status in Taiwan. I don't intend to renounce my Taiwanese citizenship, but prefer to continue my education. Would anybody have any information that may apply to my situation? HRian


 * Your best bet would be to contact the closest TECRO office for information on your situation. I seriously doubt you will risk criminal status, mostly likely you may just have difficulty leaving again you ever travel back to Taiwan. Achou79 00:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * From what I understand, if you ever return to Taiwan you will not be able to leave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.189.10.63 (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (April 2012)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move this page only. Please discuss the other pages separately on their talk pages, since it doesn't seem to have been entirely clear for everyone which articles this request covers. Jafeluv (talk) 06:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

- had recently been moved over to Taiwan. Throughout the discussions it had been established that Taiwan is the common name of the Republic of China and it isn't just a recent name. It has always been so for decades. The two terms are synonymous, and Taiwanese can be used as a demonym of this country. All articles nominated in this request are not proper nouns. 219.76.126.248 (talk) 09:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Conscription in the Republic of China → Conscription in Taiwan
 * Nationality law of the Republic of China → Nationality law of Taiwan
 * List of diplomatic missions in the Republic of China → List of diplomatic missions in Taiwan
 * Visa policy of the Republic of China → Visa policy of Taiwan
 * Visa requirements for Republic of China citizens → Visa requirements for Taiwanese citizens
 * Support. Most readers will assume from the current titles that these articles are about China. Kauffner (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I undid the multiple page move request. The reasons for moving each page are different. They should be treated on a case-by-case basis. Please propose separate page moves.--Jiang (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support all except the last one. 202.64.189.90 (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC) — 202.64.189.90 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic., and other contribs have been pointy and disruptive


 * Per Kauffner. Republic of China citizens is somehow different however. The people aren't Taiwanese citizens. 202.64.189.90 (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support -- This is a natural consequence of the move of Republic of China to Taiwan. To the rest of the world. RoC is a derocognised polity, commopnly known as Taiwan. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I probably would have supported most of the others (added since I voted), but possibly we should say "Republic of China (Taiwan)" when referring to the governmetn and its emanations. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support -- This fits the move of ROC article to Taiwan - also the fact that conscription has large impact on people (not just government) and the fact that this article doesn't cover any pre-1949 history. Readin (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose all. It's the state not the island responsible for all these. The people are citizens of the ROC. The Nationality Law is a proper noun. People are conscripted into the Republic of China Armed Forces not the Taiwanese Armed Forces. The visas and passports say Republic of China not Taiwan as the issuing government. Jeremy (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I undid your restoration of the multiple page move listing. Please do not restore it is the middle of a discussion as it will confuse what people are commenting on.--Jiang (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I came to oppose them all. Don't remove them with no consensus please. Jeremy (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't care what you came to oppose. You are not the nominator. You are the one who re-added them - they were not removed after you commented. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. You do not try to nominate something just to oppose the nomination. Perhaps a longer explanation is in order:
 * Multiple page moves are designed for interlinked pages, such as when A needs to be moved to B and B needs to be moved to C. This is not. It may also be used less frequently for identically titles pages such as "List of Z in A" and "List of Y in A" and "List of X in A". This does not qualify either. Some pages here are descriptive titles (Conscription in the Republic of China) while others are redirects pointing to proper names (Nationality law of the Republic of China). As such, these articles should be proposed as separate page moves.
 * Peterkingiron and Readin commented in "Support" for moving Conscription in the Republic of China only. Please don't confuse the responses here by adding items to the nomination after others have already commented. You are free to propose these page moves separately.--Jiang (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither are you the nominator, Jiang. Anyhow I oppose them all, including conscription. People are conscripted not only from Taiwan and not only after 1945 or 1949. They are conscripted to the Republic of China Armed Forces. Jeremy (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. All these titles are descriptive, hence we should use the short form "Taiwan" instead of the official "Republic of China". mge o  talk 16:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Should we apply non-admin closure and invite the nominator to resubmit? People are voting on different things here. Some, including me, voted on all. Some voted only on conscription. Jeremy (talk) 10:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think so Readin (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well its clear that people are certainly commenting on the first one (this page is where it is posted after all) so there's no controversy in using what's already here to determine whether Conscription in the Republic of China should be moved.--Jiang (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It does no harm for clarity and fairness sake to speedy close it and invite everyone to come back to comment again. It just takes a few extra days. Jeremy (talk) 10:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy close and resubmit. 218.250.159.216 (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC) This IP has been blocked as a sock  — 218.250.159.216 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Support Whether or not we call the government by the long name of the state, this article has a descriptive title. I also note Jiang is correct in his actions an assessments, the moves should be handled separately, but all those who commented on all moves thus have also commented on this particular move. CMD (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Jeremy. All articles around politics, military and foreign relations should not be named as Taiwan. They predates 1949 and are all about the state instead of the island. 218.250.159.216 (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC) This IP has been blocked as a sock  — 218.250.159.216 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * They conscript outside Taiwan too. 218.250.159.216 (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC) This IP has been blocked as a sock
 * They don't conscript outside Taiwan, because as evidence in the move request showed, the country is called Taiwan. Also, even if we go by that argument, this article notes conscription started in 1949, so it clearly didn't pre-date it. CMD (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * These are two different concepts of the same word Taiwan. It's like in Olympics 'Great Britain' covers Northern Ireland too. 218.250.159.216 (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC) This IP has been blocked as a sock
 * So focus on the concept which is intended by the name suggested. CMD (talk) 10:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The Military Service Act was enacted long before 1949. The two concepts require disambiguation. 218.250.159.216 (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC) This IP has been blocked as a sock
 * What article are we disambiguating with? CMD (talk) 06:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 218.250.159.216 - Don't comment twice SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Oppose. It spans across 194. Should be speedy closed. 210.17.196.24 (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC) — 210.17.196.24 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 1949. 210.17.196.24 (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, this is a descriptive title whose components should use their respective common names. The common name of the ROC is Taiwan, as established with the article at Taiwan. The article is about a current topic and its associated history. The so-called '1949 boundary' has no bearing; most articles on Wikipedia are able to deal with history in this way, including Conscription in Germany, which has no problem spanning the '1990 boundary' of German reunification. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  04:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Conscription in Taiwan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070323024407/http://english.taipei.gov.tw:80/docms/index.jsp?categid=2077 to http://english.taipei.gov.tw/docms/index.jsp?categid=2077&recordid=1314
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060517100407/http://english.taipei.gov.tw:80/docms/index.jsp?categid=2073 to http://english.taipei.gov.tw/docms/index.jsp?categid=2073&recordid=1347

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Conscription in Taiwan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060517100407/http://english.taipei.gov.tw:80/docms/index.jsp?categid=2073 to http://english.taipei.gov.tw/docms/index.jsp?categid=2073&recordid=1313
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070319072931/http://english.taipei.gov.tw:80/docms/index.jsp?categid=2076 to http://english.taipei.gov.tw/docms/index.jsp?categid=2076&recordid=1313

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Conscription in Taiwan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061127012503/http://www.mnd.gov.tw/direct/soldier/index.htm to http://www.nca.gov.tw/EngVer/eng-1.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061127012503/http://www.mnd.gov.tw/direct/soldier/index.htm to http://www.mnd.gov.tw/direct/soldier/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Outdated
I have tagged this article as outdated. Some of the text in this article has ceased to be valid for several years. For example, there is no longer a "national defense service" and the period of service is less than one year. The text in general needs a thorough scrubbing.--Jiang (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

In addition the end of conscription wasn't ended in 2016 - it was pushed back to 20182607:F470:6:3003:5008:58F3:BA07:296E (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conscription in Taiwan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150708222339/http://www.taiwan.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=27218&ctNode=1967&mp=1001 to http://www.taiwan.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=27218&ctNode=1967&mp=1001

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)