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
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