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
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US