The two main candidates in next year's presidential election -- President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) -- have agreed to hold a debate on the issues of referendums and a new constitution. This is a ray of sunshine amidst today's negative campaigning. Finally, candidates can put negative campaigning aside and debate their visions for the nation's future.
Voters have lost their appetites recently because of quarrels in the media, the groundless criticisms that fly between the pan-green and pan-blue camps and the dispute over the controversial Special Report VCDs. But Chen and Lien are now bringing the campaign back on track. Constitutional reform, referendums, and cross-strait relations are the topics that people really want to hear the candidates talk about. We hope that the debate will set a high standard for the presidential election campaign.
Although a great ideological divide separates the blue and green camps, their opinions on the constitution issue have converged. Lien's first reaction was to call the idea of a new constitution "Boring!" Later he suggested that a constitutional amendment committee be set up following the election. Recently he proposed a three-step plan for a new constitution.
In form, Lien's current proposal is a copy of the DPP's longstanding call for a new constitution, but it differs in its spirit. This may cause public confusion about the blue and green camps' constitutional proposals. A debate between Chen and Lien might allow the public to clearly see the two proposals' advantages and disadvantages.
The DPP emphasizes a democratic process for constitutional changes. It favors a bottom-up approach without any conditions, and adheres to the principle that the decision should be made by the people in a referendum. Issues such as the nation's name, flag and borders would have to be resolved separately.
The KMT, on the other hand, has allowed a core group of policymakers to decide that a new constitution could not touch on the issue of the nation's name and flag.
The KMT has also proposed a faster schedule than has the DPP, but the KMT wants to amend the Constitution through the Legislative Yuan, elect members to an extraordinary National Assembly to add provisions for a referendum on the Constitution, and use the referendum procedures in the amended Constitution to complete the process. Such a process would be too complicated and would contain too many variables.
Taiwan's political problems -- past, present and future -- boil down to the China problem. Sooner or later, the Constitution must clearly differentiate Taiwan from China.
Chen and Lien both say that Taiwan is a sovereign state. Chen describes Taiwan and China as being "one country on each side" of the Taiwan Strait, while Lien says they belong to one China -- the Republic of China (ROC).
Although Lien's statement is consistent with the KMT's China policy, he must explain why there is only one China when both the PRC and the ROC are sovereign states. Most nations in the world have recognized the PRC for half a century, but Lien now wants to persuade them that there is no PRC, but only the ROC. This is wishful thinking, and it runs counter to international understanding of the situation.
We hope that Lien will be able to present an effective argument to persuade not only the Taiwanese people but also China and the international community that they ought to accept his one China theory.
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