The legislature’s ad hoc Constitutional Amendment Committee on Tuesday met for the first time since it was established in September last year.
Many bills related to constitutional amendments have not been discussed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and it is unlikely that the 52 proposals awaiting review would be covered before the end of the month, committee convener Kuan Bi-ling (管碧玲) said. The committee of five added that most bills would likely be put off until the next scheduled legislative session in September.
Until now, the Democratic Progressive Party and New Power Party have been focusing on proposals to abolish the Control Yuan and Examination Yuan, and to lower the voting age to 18, but there is one proposal the committee should prioritize: the removal of the words “national unification” from the beginning of the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China (憲法增修條文).
China has threatened military action against Taiwan if it removes this wording, but that is precisely why it must go — to call Beijing’s bluff. If China has not made any serious attempt at invading Taiwan for more than half a century, it is exceedingly unlikely that it would do so over the removal of a few words from what is not even the Constitution, but an addendum introduced in 1991.
This is particularly true given the support shown for Taiwan by the current and previous US administrations. Regardless of its rhetoric, Beijing will not risk war with the US and its allies over Taiwan amending its Constitution — especially given that China’s economy is slowing and it is facing a declining birthrate. To engage in a devastating war that would most likely leave China cut off from the global economy would be suicide for the Chinese Communist Party.
Removing this language from the Constitution would be an invaluable gesture demonstrating that the government is making real progress toward the nation’s normalization — something that Taiwanese have repeatedly shown a desire for in surveys. It would also cement the idea for Taiwanese that China plays no factor in the nation’s politics, and that Taiwanese alone decide what is to be done with their Constitution.
The government should ask the US to conduct a naval transit through the Taiwan Strait at the same time that the amendment is ratified (assuming it passes the referendum stage). This would not be a declaration of anything by the US, which has been conducting such transits with regularity anyway, but it would make Beijing think twice about making a move.
This amendment could also be a great opportunity for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to reinvent itself. If the KMT supports the proposal, it would show that it is truly in touch with the majority sentiment, making it a much more valuable opposition party.
The KMT must realize that abandoning the idea of national unification is not tantamount to abolishing the Republic of China (ROC), but is simply recognizing reality. The ROC cannot continue to exist under China without first abolishing the People’s Republic of China, which will simply not happen.
Whether the ROC ultimately lives on will be up to Taiwanese to decide, but the only way it has any chance of surviving is if it refers to the territory it administers — Kinmen, Lienchiang and Penghu counties, and Taiwan proper. Taiwanese do not want to be administered under China’s “one country, two systems” framework, but even if they did, it would be as “Taiwan, Special Administrative Region,” not “Republic of China, Special Administrative Region.”
Given the importance of removing the words “national unification” from the Constitution to satisfy the wishes of Taiwanese and normalizing the nation, this should be the first constitutional amendment that is put to a referendum. Other proposals can wait.
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Following the BRICS summit held in Kazan, Russia, last month, media outlets circulated familiar narratives about Russia and China’s plans to dethrone the US dollar and build a BRICS-led global order. Each summit brings renewed buzz about a BRICS cross-border payment system designed to replace the SWIFT payment system, allowing members to trade without using US dollars. Articles often highlight the appeal of this concept to BRICS members — bypassing sanctions, reducing US dollar dependence and escaping US influence. They say that, if widely adopted, the US dollar could lose its global currency status. However, none of these articles provide
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
US president-elect Donald Trump earlier this year accused Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) of “stealing” the US chip business. He did so to have a favorable bargaining chip in negotiations with Taiwan. During his first term from 2017 to 2021, Trump demanded that European allies increase their military budgets — especially Germany, where US troops are stationed — and that Japan and South Korea share more of the costs for stationing US troops in their countries. He demanded that rich countries not simply enjoy the “protection” the US has provided since the end of World War II, while being stingy with
RSS