President Chen Shui-bian (
However, for anyone who understands the country's painful history of political development, drafting a new Constitution is certainly more than an agenda for pursuing Taiwan's independence.
The Constitution of modern-day Taiwan was drafted in 1947 in Nanjing, China, by the KMT government. The Constitution was designed to suit the large and populous China.
The KMT government was defeated by the communists in 1949 and was forced to retreat to Taiwan to regroup. But the KMT government continued to lay claims of sovereignty over China. Subsequently, they made the Nanjing Constitution the supreme legal document in Taiwan.
As Taiwan's democratization gained momentum in the late 1980s, the fallacies and problems inherent in the Constitution were brought to the attention of liberal intellectuals. For example, the system of government follows neither the American presidential model nor the British parliamentary model. According to the Constitution, the top leader did not have to be elected and the electoral systems for the three chambers of parliament caused confusion. And the government had an Examination Yuan that collided with the Bureau of Civil Administration.
While some argued that Taiwan had to write a new Constitution to straighten out all the problems and allow the Constitution to be based on a single philosophy, many thought that a slight revision would suffice. The KMT, which had the majority in both the National Assembly and the Legislative Yuan, ignored the voices calling for the drafting of a new Constitution.
Subsequently, six rounds of revisions were made by the KMT government after martial law was lifted. Some of these revisions were quite significant -- as in the case of the provisions calling for direct elections of the president, the streamlining of the Taiwan Provincial Government and the "suspension" of the National Assembly.
However, the problems continue to arise and issues are as confusing as ever, despite the efforts by the previous KMT administration. There is still intense debate about whether Taiwan's political system is presidential, parliamentary or semi-presidential.
The electoral system of the legislature still encourages party infighting and discourages party discipline. The Taiwan Provincial Government still exists and legally the National Assembly continues to be the body responsible for revising the Constitution.
The widely different interpretations of the constitutionality of rewriting the Constitution have thus become one of the most serious impediments to Taiwan's democratic consolidation.
The KMT and the PFP to this day argue that, since the DPP does not have a majority in the Legislative Yuan, Chen should (according to the French semi-presidential model) be stripped of any real political power. On the campaign trail, Soong continues to brag about his record as the Taiwan governor and argues that it was a mistake to streamline the Provincial Government.
To any political scientist, constant debate over the Constitution, the ultimate rulebook for all political games in any democracy, is one of the most serious threats to the survival of a young democracy.
Moreover, legislators have the responsibility to adopt proposals for the revision of the Constitution, but the quality of the legislators -- as a result of the electoral system -- has caused serious public distrust.
The public has even voiced its desire for a drastic reduction of the number of the legislators, as was evidenced in the 2001 Legislative Yuan elections when all the major political parties signed a petition to do just that. Alas, once the politicians were comfortably elected, nothing happened.
The public consensus seems to be that a referendum has become the most important means to bypass the entanglement of the legislative process. It therefore must be given proper constitutional status -- as it has in many other democracies -- as a means to amend the Constitution.
All of these issues require a comprehensive examination of the Constitution and the adoption of a new Constitution.
The KMT government had its chance to revise the Constitution in installments, but failed miserably. It is time for Taiwan to think of a suitable package that will properly represent our modern society, for it makes no sense for any major politician or political party to participate in a presidential election while arguing that the president should have no executive power.
At the threshold of Taiwan's democratic consolidation, the DPP -- as a responsible government and a responsible political party -- believes that the public ought to think about adopting a new Constitution.
The DPP believes that 2006 marks an appropriate time to address the adoption of a new Constitution. It is timely because the legislative elections will be concluded at the end of next year and a two-year period will be ample time for the country to have sufficient discussions and for political parties to work out their differences.
Joseph Wu is the deputy secretary-general to the president.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
RSS