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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS