President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) recently indicated that if the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is given a stable legislative majority on Dec. 11, he will definitely complete drafting and passage of a new constitution, as well as end the "forced implementation of the Chinese Constitution in Taiwan," among other absurd phenomena.
Chen also proposed a new timetable for the new constitution. At the end of the 2006, a referendum will be held to ratify Taiwan's first new constitution. On May 20th, 2008, the day that his second term ends and the next president is sworn into office, the new constitution will come into force.
Given that timetable, it is not hard to see that Chen is indeed pushing for the adoption of the new constitution out of a sense of mission.
He does not aim to revise the Constitution because of his personal needs, nor seeking to become a "super domineering" president. Chen has very clearly explained his goal in drafting the new constitution. It is based in the need to correct the problems, flaws, and incompatibilities of the current Constitution. Chen has emphasized that we need substantive constitutional reforms to tailor the document to our time, place and needs.
He has also indicated that he does not want to become trap-ped in a war of words over whether what he "really" intends to do is to adopt a "new" constitution" or "amend" the existing one. But the US seems to be skeptical. US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher pointed out on Nov. 29 that the US takes Chen's 2000 inauguration promises seriously and believes that these pledges should be respected.
He also reiterated Chen's promises word for word: not to declare independence, not to change the official name of Taiwan from the Republic of China, not to add the "state-to-state" model of cross-strait relations to the Constitution, and not to hold a referendum to change the status quo on independence or unification with China. As for whether Chen's new constitution will violate these promises, Boucher indicated that Chen should clarify that himself.
Chen gave an immediate response the next day during his meeting with visiting US representatives. According to Chen, the timetable he has given regarding the new constitution, in terms of direction and substance, is completely compatible with the existing constitutional and political system. Moreover, the direction and policy of the constitutional and political reforms addressed during his inauguration speech, Double Ten National Day speech, and National Security Council speech on Nov. 10 will not be changed during his term.
Boucher pointed out that the primary US interest is in maintaining stability in the Taiwan Strait and that the US opposes any unilateral change to the status quo. "We are opposed to any referendum that would change Taiwan's status or move toward independence," he said.
Boucher's statements indicate that the US is concerned about Taiwan's campaign to reform the Constitution. This concern stems from a misunderstanding about the new constitution: thinking that it entails a public referendum that moves Taiwan toward formal independence. It stems also from an inaccurate judgement about the situation in the Taiwan Strait.
The US wrongly believes that Taiwan is about to change the status quo, which could further heighten tension in the Taiwan Strait. In reality, there is absolutely no need for the US to feel skeptical about the president's timetable for the new constitution.
First, as we have repeatedly indicated, after decades of democratic and localized reforms, Taiwan has left behind its undetermined political status as well as rule by the alien regime. On this land, the 23 million Taiwanese people have their own government, military, judiciary, currency and officials and legislative representatives at all levels of the government. Taiwan has become an independent sovereign country.
There is no need to seek an independent status through referendum or a new constitution. But while Taiwan is independent, because of past oppression by the alien regime, the name of the country, national flag, national anthem, the Constitution's definition of territory and the government system continue to exhibit remnants of the "Greater China" ideology and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) rule.
These are obviously at odds with reality. This indicates that Taiwan is not yet a "normal" country. The campaign to push for a new constitution is a movement to normalize the country through drafting a constitution tailored to this time and place and to the demands of the people, so that Taiwan can become a country both in form and substance.
The goal in drafting the new constitution is to pursue a policy of "de-Sinicization" that will get rid of the absurdities left behind since the days of KMT rule, so that Taiwan can become a normalized country. This entails restructuring the nation's governmental and political system, which will highlight the coming of age of public consciousness about the country's sovereignty.
This is an internal matter. It is not against one country's interests nor significant to any international relationships. Why must others be concerned that Taiwan is about to unilaterally change the status quo and trigger tension in the Strait?
The US has not only remained friendly to Taiwan over the years, but has also helped maintain peace. So it is not hard to understand where the US is coming from in feeling concerned. However, Taiwan is an independent, sovereign country. The people of Taiwan have the right to pursue a better political and constitutional form of government, and seek to end political and constitutional chaos, free of meddling from any other countries. The US especially should be able to understand the democratic principle that power resides with the people. Taiwan's efforts to ratify a new constitution through a referendum exemplifies the spirit of democracy.
How can the US, out of concern about China's potential irrational behavior, not only fail to uphold justice but even succumb to joining communist China in oppressing a democracy? While we cannot agree with the way the US questions Taiwan's new constitution, we feel compelled to call on the Taiwan government to abandon Chen's 2000 inaugural pledges, or the so-called "four noes" policy.
Frankly, that policy was an effort to avoid Chinese aggression and provocation against the backdrop of the first ever change in Taiwan's ruling party. However, it is in essence a policy of self-effacement which hurts Taiwan's dignity and integrity. It is not something a sovereignty country would typically adopt.
Moreover, China has failed to show any appreciation for the policy in the four years since its initial utterance. Beijing continues to spare no effort in narrowing Taiwan's international space. Worse, the policy has become an obstacle to Taiwan's development. Beijing frequently interferes in Taiwan's internal affairs by citing Chen's pledges.
Taiwan's internal political and government reform has become an international event, making Taiwan look like the wrongdoer. In other words, the "four noes" have become Taiwan's self-imposed prison cell. Taiwan will only be able to move ahead freely when it loosens these restraints.
For Taiwan to become a normal country, drafting a new constitution is a must. Whether Taiwan can successfully adopt a suitable new constitution will have a fundamental impact on the sustainability of the country's development. Therefore, while the experience of other countries may be referenced, outside interference cannot be allowed.
Since reforming the Constitution will require the support of the majority of the people, the ruling party should no longer simply see the promise of a new constitution as some kind of campaign gimmick. Rather, it should submit clear, complete and carefully considered outlines and proposals about the structure, substance, functions and visions of the new constitution.
In this way misunderstandings can be avoided and people in Taiwan and abroad can truly understand what constitutional reform is really all about. A clear plan will also put the reform project on the right path and ensure that the new constitution will be adopted.
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