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
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
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS