The Constitution was amended six times in the 1990s. Now, after a two-year hiatus, the ruling and opposition parties have once again brought up the question of constitutional amendments again.
The TSU wants to reduce the number of legislators by half, the KMT wishes to lower the voting age, the PFP wants to reinstate the legislature's right to veto the nominee for premier and the DPP wants a presidential system adopted.
Under the new, convoluted, procedure for constitutional amendment -- established by constitutional amendment on April 25, 2000 -- a reform bill must first be first passed by a three-quarter majority in the legislature. It then must be published and, six months later, delegates to the National Assembly must be elected by a system of proportional representation. Then the National Assembly must vote on the bill.
Essentially, once the Legislative Yuan has passed the bill, society gets its chance to argue about it. Ordinarily, the election of National Assembly delegates would be equivalent to a referendum. However, unless we properly formulate the Law Governing Exercise of Power by the Legislative Yuan (立法院職權行使法), the referenda at the National Assembly will be little different from the voting in the legislature.
Once a bill reaches the National Assembly, it then initiates a third round of battling. The public should start bracing themselves for a mess -- watching a battle to amend the Constitution is not a pretty sight.
The social costs of amending the Constitution must be taken into consideration. Amendments should be made only when absolutely necessary and only when a consensus has been reached among the parties. It is better to wait than to take action frivolously.
Questions involving reducing the number of legislators or reforming the electoral system are just technical problems -- unlike the much more fundamental issue of relations between the executive and the legislative branches. If the principles of the system aren't clarified, even a legislature reduced in size by half will be chaotic. Is there any possibility that a consensus will take shape on systemic issues?
I feel that human rights issues, which were overlooked in the previous constitutional amendments, should be given higher priority this time.
Apart from the fairly high consensus for lowering the voting age, arguments concerning gender equality and the hastily implemented rules for alternative military service will likely erupt.
Other issues, such as the conflict between moral integrity and academic freedom in genetic research -- as well as the role of free enterprise in the trend toward globalization -- are all hotly contested issues, as far as constitutional matters are concerned, all over the world.
Constitutional amendments need not be such partisan issues.
Su Yeong-chin is a professor of law at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Scudder Smith
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers