Taiwan seems to have entered an unprecedented "constitutional moment." All kinds of proposals for what to do with the Constitution are being promoted, ranging from amending the Constitution to re-engineering it; from merely changing constitutional procedures to changing the nature of the document.
Despite the fact there have been numerous constitutional amendments in the past, this has not exhausted the imagination of politicians as to what can be achieved with the Constitution. These politicians are constantly seeking to harness the energy of the people through various forms of activism so they can achieve their political goals.
But most ordinary Taiwanese do not see what all the drama has to do with their lives. With the exception of interested individuals or groups, most people do not necessarily understand the significance of whether Taiwan should undergo constitutional re-engineering or amendment s, whether it should adopt a presidential, semi-presidential or parliamentary system, or a host of other political issues. People might even believe this controversy reflects little more than the political maneuvering of a small number of politicians.
In fact, this phenomenon simply reflects a sense of alienation most Taiwanese have with regard to the Constitution. This is partly because Taiwan's experience with altering the Constitution is so mired in political maneuvering and grandstanding that the government was totally unable to win any kind of credibility. People hardly expect that politicians will put their cards on the table and seek to remedy political problems together through constitutional means. If the majority of the public thinks this way, any political bloc wishing to take a lead in the discussions over constitutional reform should reflect carefully over the lessons learned from past failures of the amendment process and ensure that they are not repeated.
The Taipei Society and the Taiwan Law Society held a joint press conference recently and noted that in the 1997 round of Constitutional amendments, public opinion and debate were totally rejected. The Taipei Society asked that greater effort be put into gathering public input on proposed amendments, conducting the process on the basis of the "five noes and three imperatives."
The five noes refer to no secret negotiations, no hidden trade offs, no strategic calculations, no obfuscation, and no party precedent over public opinion. The three imperatives are transparency of information, open discussion and public scrutiny. The Taipei Society emphasized that the design of the Constitution is not a private matter for political parties. Public discussion at an early stage is necessary so that people can better understand Constitutional issues and the pros and cons of various proposals. The public should be encouraged to participate. Only in this way can a consciousness of citizenship be developed and the Taiwanese people become the masters of their country. If the new constitution is to receive wider support from the public and achieve its goal of protecting human rights, it cannot be left to those within the structure of government.
The EU recently passed a draft of its constitution. Its second chapter is dedicated to the human rights that member nations must adhere to. The chapter, with 54 articles, is one of the most comprehensive expressions of human rights ever drafted.
Europe is the cradle of modern constitutional government. It has now cemented the concept of human rights, making it a core principle of modern constitutional government. This should inspire Taiwan and demonstrate a successful way of forging a closer link between the people and the Constitution that protects their rights.
The lessons of history come when we least expect them. In 1997, Hsu Hsin-liang (許信良), then chairman of the Democratic Progressive Party, supported a presidential system, but turned to promoting a Cabinet-style system after the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) failed in its 2000 election bid, we saw once again how undesirable it is to have constitutional amendments driven by politicians.
If Taiwan's new constitution is to have real vitality, it must be closely related to ordinary people and their rights. Only a constitution of this nature will benefit the people and the country.
Ku Chung-hwa is a professor of sociology at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Ian Bartholomew
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS