After his announcement on Sunday that he would push for a new Constitution for Taiwan in 2006, President Chen Shui-bian (
His remarks are expected to trigger heated debate among the nation's political parties and in the media, which could pave the way for resolving the political chaos that has beset Taiwan for many years.
Questions regarding the suitability of the current Constitution, which was enacted in China in 1947, have been part of the political scene since Taiwan's first direct presidential election in 1996. The Constitution has since been amended six times, but major questions regarding the country's reforms were repeatedly sidelined due to the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) various political considerations. As a result, the DPP government has been unable to fulfill its major campaign promises regarding political reforms, due to its lack of a majority in the legislature.
As Chen pointed out, questions regarding legislative reforms -- such as reducing the number of seats by half and setting up a single-member district system -- need to be resolved quickly. The same is true for questions such as whether a plurality or absolute majority system should be adopted for presidential elections, whether to adopt a parliamentary or presidential system and whether to have a five-branch or three-branch government. Only then can the country achieve political stability, instead of running into partisan quarrels on the legislative floor over the same old political issues every year, which creates a chaotic impression of Taiwan's politics and leads to public dissatisfaction about the inefficiency of the legislature.
Although political considerations play a role in Chen's raising of the Constitution issue at this point, if Taiwan does not resolve these major constitutional issues one by one and move toward an advanced democratic system, the nation's democracy will continue to make a bad impression on the international community and the legislature will become an international laughing stock. This will cause great damage to the dignity of Taiwan and its people. At the same time, the massive government machine will remain as it is now, continuing to suck the people dry of their tax money and pointlessly keeping a large bunch of civil servants who have nothing to do.
A state leader should, of course, present views with foresight, even if reforms conducive to the interests of the public cannot be immediately implemented. However, he has the responsibility to continually remind the people that the problems facing Taiwan's system and government operations now and in the future should be resolved through discussions among a vast majority of the people and by building social consensus to promote a reasonable path to reform.
This is what a responsible government should do. The issues of constitutional amendments and writing a new Constitution should not be viewed as a "Taiwan indepen-dence conspiracy."
In no way is the current Constitution suitable to Taiwan's current status, given the thriving development of democracy and freedom. The Constitution exists to promote the supreme interests of the people. It is not true that the people cannot amend the Constitution or write a new one simply to maintain its integrity. The Constitution, therefore, needs to change along with the times. The pro-unification camp need not panic.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS