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
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