The calls for a new constitution seem to have become mainstream recently. But why is a new constitution needed? No reasonable answer has been given so far. All the proposed reasons given have been either metaphorical or analogous. For example, "the existing Constitution was designed for China. It's just like wearing an oversized cloth for Taiwan to adopt such an unsuitable Consti-tution here. Therefore, it's better to design a new cloth, rather than constantly fixing the old one."
First, in terms of such metaphors, although a constitution can be portrayed as a cloth metaphorically, it can also be portrayed as other objects as well -- for example, whiskey. It seems reasonable to replace an old cloth with a new one. But for whiskey, the longer it's kept in oak buckets, the better the liquor tastes. We can certainly throw old clothes away. But shouldn't we cherish long-preserved whiskey and not throw it away?
In terms of such analogies, the proposed analogy between a constitution/country and cloth/person cannot stand up to close scrutiny. There were only 13 states in the US when it promulgated its Constitution. Over the past two centuries, the territory of the US has expanded several times. But we have never heard Americans say that "the country is getting bigger, and can hardly fit in the small cloth made in the past. Therefore, we need to establish a new Constitution."
The Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany was initially established for the transitional period of unification. But after East Germany joined the Federal Republic of Germany, the basic law was actually quite suitable. So we have never heard the German people request a new constitution because they are once again a united nation.
The current metaphors and analogies have been proposed because no other justifiable reasons can be given. Since no straightforward reasons can be cited, politicians can only talk about soft, sentimental and intuitive metaphors and analogies.
Both metaphors and analogies can touch people. But it's surely harmful if a nation's politics is based on them. They may even hamper discussion -- which is the foundation of democratic politics -- because rational discussion is based on reason.
Under the authoritarian system of the past decades, politics in Taiwan was distorted -- sorrowful sentiments, protests and anger on the one hand, and patriotism, missions and historical responsibilities on the other. We are no help to the future of Taiwan's democracy if we continue the irrational actions during the process of the nation's democratization at present.
If politicians want to lead the nation in a healthy and democratic direction, they must come up with reasonable proof when proposing any political views.
Take the new constitution issue for example: Those who actively call for a new constitution should reasonably clarify why exactly the Constitution of the Republic of China (ROC) is unfit. What constitutional articles are suitable for use only in China, not Taiwan? What factors have made it so difficult to amend these unsuitable articles that the situation can only be remedied by the drafting of a new constitution?
They will be proven irrational if they cannot offer such rational explanations. Unreasonable politics is merely considered passion, or even populism, but it can never be called democracy. To accomplish democracy, people have to be reasonable.
It's hoped that the existing political forces can change their attitudes and achieve "reasonable politics." If they are unable to do so, at least the public should walk in this direction in order to pressure politicians to walk the right way.
Max Sun is an assistant professor in the department of political science at National Chengchi University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing