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
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 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
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95