Just as in the past, a country’s constitution is far from being the public’s main preoccupation, unless a constitutional matter makes the news for some reason. You will not hear it discussed in bars or on talk shows. The US Constitution was written behind closed doors and served as the template for the constitution that rules postwar Japan, essentially a US import. The Japanese were ashamed of it, and initiated movements to draft their own constitution that were ultimately unsuccessful, because ordinary people were simply not engaged.
The best thing that could happen would be for Taiwan to capitalize on the Sunflower movement and mandate that the legislature revise the Republic of China Constitution. Failing that, it will be up to the political parties, whose duty is to amend the Constitution on behalf of citizens in a democratic system. Traditionally, voters have supported parties based on their perceived reliability or their persuasiveness. Today, with the Internet, these parties need to be careful that they do what they promise.
Simple arithmetic shows that, even if the proposal to move the date of the presidential election to the end of April is adopted, there will only be three more months between the end of the legislative session and the presidential election. Two legislative sessions combined is only six months, which is too short to amend the Constitution.
Neither Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) nor Democratic Progressive Party Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) have rushed to call for a conference on Constitutional amendments, and their commitment to the idea has been brought into question.
Historically, it has been the president who has convened such a conference. Neither is president, so how will they justify their positions with regard to the Constitutional amendment process? Decisive action is always best in complicated situations, and Occam’s razor — adopting the solution with the least amount of assumptions — is the best choice of action. This principle has been around for more than 600 years and is particularly relevant in this age of information overload.
A well-written constitution is the perfect exposition of this principle. As it is a law entailing the most basic principles, everything extraneous should be left out. It will serve as the trunk, other laws the branches and the leaves. The problem with the Constitution we have today is that it is as detailed as any other law. If the Constitution can be pitched at the level it should be, it will be successful.
Germany’s Basic Law is meticulous in its detail. However, concerning matters that will change over time, such as elections of the German Bundestag, the Basic Law only says that members of parliament must “be elected in general, direct, free, equal and secret elections.” As for how that should be done in practical terms, it only says, “details shall be regulated by federal law.”
Keep it simple. An attempt to push through a full-scale amendment could end up aiming high and hitting low. The best policy would be to go with the principle of Occam’s razor.
First, details that are at the level of the Constitution, but considered flawed by many — such as regulations on the voting age and the extremely high threshold for passage of an amendment — should be corrected.
Second, any item that is not at the constitutional level should be downgraded to the level to which it belongs. The constitution should only say that “details must be regulated by law.” For example: legislative elections, the number of legislators and the size of constituencies. The details of those matters will change over time and future lawmakers should be able to decide their needs and make changes.
Christian Fan Jiang is deputy convener of the Northern Taiwan Society’s legal and political group.
Translated by Ethan Zhan
US president-elect Donald Trump continues to make nominations for his Cabinet and US agencies, with most of his picks being staunchly against Beijing. For US ambassador to China, Trump has tapped former US senator David Perdue. This appointment makes it crystal clear that Trump has no intention of letting China continue to steal from the US while infiltrating it in a surreptitious quasi-war, harming world peace and stability. Originally earning a name for himself in the business world, Perdue made his start with Chinese supply chains as a manager for several US firms. He later served as the CEO of Reebok and
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
US president-elect Donald Trump in an interview with NBC News on Monday said he would “never say” if the US is committed to defending Taiwan against China. Trump said he would “prefer” that China does not attempt to invade Taiwan, and that he has a “very good relationship” with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Before committing US troops to defending Taiwan he would “have to negotiate things,” he said. This is a departure from the stance of incumbent US President Joe Biden, who on several occasions expressed resolutely that he would commit US troops in the event of a conflict in
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 —
RSS