The response from the pan-blue camp to President Chen Shui-bian's (
The the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-People First Party (PFP) alliance hopes to scare the public into believing that Chen wants to use the new constitution to change the country's name to "Republic of Taiwan."
By creating such fears, the pan-blue camp can stifle discussion about the necessity and legitimacy of a new constitution.
While this may be the most sensible tactic for the pan-blue camp to take ahead of next year's election, a new constitution is key to creating long-lasting peace and stability in Taiwan. The KMT-PFP alliance's argument -- that a new constitution would lead to Taiwanese independence and therefore the risk of war -- is full of coarse predictions and biased mistakes that need clearing up.
First, we shouldn't fight over words. Whether we are amending the Constitution or writing a new one, elements of the current Constitution will remain. Some countries have drawn up constitutions or achieved the same effect by amending the core articles of their original constitution, for example in the Netherlands and Finland. These countries maintained their original national titles after renewing their constitutions.
This shows us that the pan-blue camp's claim that drawing up a new constitution is tantamount to declaring independence or changing the national title is deliberately misleading. Since the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in its 1999 "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" confirms that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation, and that its name, according to the Constitution, is the Republic of China, there is no need to draw up a new constitution to declare independence for Taiwan.
Second, the question of whether peace in the Taiwan Strait will be maintained is not dependent on the good will of any one side, but rather on the international strategic situation, in particular US attitudes and China's real strength.
In fact, according to China's white paper on Taiwan policy published in 2000, the definition of Taiwanese independence doesn't end at "changing the national title" but includes "indefinitely postponing talks about peaceful unification."
Therefore, the blue camp's promotion of "one China" and the exclusion of the public's right to change the national flag or the national title via a referendum does nothing to protect Taiwan's sovereignty and leaves the country vulnerable to China's traps in the international arena.
If China continues to persist in its "one country, two systems" strategic goal, and Taiwan keeps blindly restricting itself, Taiwan will eventually be peacefully swallowed up by China.
Finally, a new constitution would lead to a deepening of democracy that can reform and protect Taiwan. Taiwan's Constitution is full of contradictions and compromises.
A new constitution could lay the foundations for a peaceful and stable constitutional system, improve the quality of democratic politics and national competitiveness, and allow Taiwan to join the ranks of normal, complete and mighty nations. This is the only undertaking that will protect the existence and development of Taiwan.
In the midst of intense campaigning, I'm not sure whether the pan-blue camp will agree that only those who fight for long-term goals instead of temporary gains will in the end be able to pass the test of history.
Yu Mei-mei is executive secretary of the DPP Strategy and Discussion Group.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS