As Article 4 of the Constitution states, "The territory of the Republic of China [ROC] within its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the National Assembly."
But what is the ROC anyway? Where is it? If it still exists today, where are its national boundaries?
In fact, a mere 26 weak and tiny countries acknowledge the so-called ROC. As for leading powers -- such as the US, the European Union (EU), Japan and China -- none recognize the ROC's existence. The state that they are dealing with is called "Taiwan," whose current territory includes Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu.
The ROC is simply the ancestral tablet before which Taiwan's pro-unificationists pray: it was eradicated from Chinese history a long time ago. However, the pro-unification camp has refused to accept this fact, and continues to tightly embrace the ROC corpse. In the name of national unity and completeness, the rest of the Taiwanese people have been forced to pray before the same ancestral tablet.
According to the geography textbooks we study in school, the territory of the ROC includes Mongolia and the People's Republic of China (PRC). ROC territory thus consists of three countries: Taiwan, China and Mongolia. What kind of super-imperialistic Constitution is this, including the lands of other countries in its own territory? Since no one takes the Constitution seriously, perhaps we can act even more ridiculously, and call an extraordinary session of the National Assembly to annex the territories of the US and Japan.
This Constitution was passed on Dec. 25, 1946, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) still ruled China. It was promulgated on Jan. 1, 1947, and came into force on Dec. 25 the same year. Comparing the situation at the time with Taiwan's current situation, we see that our country is still wearing a suit tailored for China 60 years ago, and is unable to shake it off.
Any democratic country abiding by the rule of law has a basic national law. Even totalitarian China has a constitution it uses to show off its civilized behavior. Taiwan, however, still uses the Constitution of a non-existent country -- the ROC -- and because it is inappropriate, it is repeatedly amended.
It has now been amended nine times in all, but problems still abound. What's worse, each amendment leads to a major political crisis, amost splitting the country in two. This is too high a price to pay.
A sound democracy must have an appropriate constitution. The meaning of that constitution can then change with the times. The text of the US Constitution, for example, is simple, and, as times change, interpretations by the Supreme Court serve to further consolidate its spirit. This means that the US can solve constitutional disputes simply by calling for a constitutional interpretation instead of through a major amendment process at high political cost.
In a videoconference last week, former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) gave a speech to US officials and academics, once again stressing Taiwan's need for a new constitution. Lee could well be called the best spokesperson for a new constitution, since the amendments made during his presidency led to political attacks from his political foes, incessant political disputes, and political instability. A constitutional amendment is thus no longer the ideal solution to the constitutional crisis.
A new constitution is now Taiwan's only choice.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng (何立峰) are expected to meet this month in Paris to prepare for a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). According to media reports, the two sides would discuss issues such as the potential purchase of Boeing aircraft by China, increasing imports of US soybeans and the latest impacts of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. However, recent US military action against Iran has added uncertainty to the Trump-Xi summit. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) called the joint US-Israeli airstrikes and the
RSS