As the presidential election draws near, each camp's candidates have been putting forward sensational policies to build up their momentum. One of the most heated topics is about a new constitution.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) advocates enacting a new constitution, while the alliance of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP) prefers to amend the current Constitution. Whichever method we adopt, whichever party raised the topic and for whatever reason, obviously a consensus has been reached among parties. That is, the constitution is flawed and requires revision, either partially or entirely. It certainly is a good start that deserves recognition.
However, each party is using familiar political tactics to advance their positions. They are still using traditional political wrangling and slogan-shouting. The blue camp has announced 10 principles it wants to employ when revising the Constitution, while the green camp has said only that it wants to write a new constitution. The two camps have agreed to hold a debate about amending the Constitution in mid-December. We cannot but ask: What have the two camps told people concerning this crucial issue of revising the Constitution or writing a new one?
We have amended the Constitution six times over a very short period. We exhausted the elite and paid a high price in terms of social conflict. Still, we did not reach the goal of creating a workable constitution. Although the political climate back then did not allow major revisions to the Constitution, the amendment process was way too coarse.
National Assembly representatives fought each other over some of the articles, many of which changed dramatically within a day. On the eve of the latest revisions to the Constitution, the then-KMT government held a National Development Conference where opinions were widely consulted -- a method that was not perfect but acceptable. At least, as a result of that revision, Taiwan's president is now directly elected by the people and the National Assembly is no longer a standing institution. So this time, shouldn't we also widely consult people's opinions? Or is it enough just to have debates among political figures?
Although the previous constitutional revisions were dominated by the National Assembly, it was nothing more than a legal procedure. The true debate over the revisions was held between the ruling and opposition parties. The process seemed to be totally irrelevant to the public; none of the parties explained to the people how they had arrived at their conclusions. They thought they represented the people so their opinion was public opinion. Such thinking was severely flawed.
Now that political parties agree that revising the Constitution is critical to the country and its future, they should be prudent enough not to amend the Constitution as hastily as they make changes to laws.
Therefore, each party should publish at least one white paper regarding revisions to the Constitution. In the white paper, they should detail why the Constitution should be changed and what legal theories their arguments are based on. For example, lawmakers should tell people why they want to decrease the number of seats in the Legislative Yuan, exercise single-member districts with a two-vote system, and establish a presidential system or a Cabinet system.
Only when people can understand each party's contentions and stands can a debate be held to let parties elaborate on their assertions and grounds.
A constitution is the foundation of a country, and it cannot be decided by debates among candidates. Debates are good for stating ideals and policies, while revising a constitution requires a solid theoretical basis.
Parties can even produce a second white paper based on opinions they received since the publication of their first white papers and the debates. If time permits, they can continue to consult widely to perfect their second white papers. Finally, each party can present their white papers to the Legislative Yuan.
A draft constitution can thus take shape.
Taiwan has transformed into a democracy but the process of revising the Constitution is not yet democratically solid. We should rethink and reorganize the procedure by doing away with the traditional practice of political wrangling and bargaining, and instead revise the Constitution in the way a mature democracy does.
Obviously, this time the revision of the Constitution is also related to the positioning of the country. Therefore, we should be even more patient. After the white papers are put forward, there should be a period when debates, integration and settlement can take place before a constitution conference settles on a version that will later be approved by all in a vote. By so doing can we thus steadily move toward a new republic.
Chen Hurng-yu is a professor of history at National Chengchi University.
translated by Jennie Shih
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry