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
A series of strong earthquakes in Hualien County not only caused severe damage in Taiwan, but also revealed that China’s power has permeated everywhere. A Taiwanese woman posted on the Internet that she found clips of the earthquake — which were recorded by the security camera in her home — on the Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu. It is spine-chilling that the problem might be because the security camera was manufactured in China. China has widely collected information, infringed upon public privacy and raised information security threats through various social media platforms, as well as telecommunication and security equipment. Several former TikTok employees revealed
For the incoming Administration of President-elect William Lai (賴清德), successfully deterring a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) attack or invasion of democratic Taiwan over his four-year term would be a clear victory. But it could also be a curse, because during those four years the CCP’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) will grow far stronger. As such, increased vigilance in Washington and Taipei will be needed to ensure that already multiplying CCP threat trends don’t overwhelm Taiwan, the United States, and their democratic allies. One CCP attempt to overwhelm was announced on April 19, 2024, namely that the PLA had erred in combining major missions
The Constitutional Court on Tuesday last week held a debate over the constitutionality of the death penalty. The issue of the retention or abolition of the death penalty often involves the conceptual aspects of social values and even religious philosophies. As it is written in The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, the government’s policy is often a choice between the lesser of two evils or the greater of two goods, and it is impossible to be perfect. Today’s controversy over the retention or abolition of the death penalty can be viewed in the same way. UNACCEPTABLE Viewing the
At the same time as more than 30 military aircraft were detected near Taiwan — one of the highest daily incursions this year — with some flying as close as 37 nautical miles (69kms) from the northern city of Keelung, China announced a limited and selected relaxation of restrictions on Taiwanese agricultural exports and tourism, upon receiving a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) delegation led by KMT legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅崑萁). This demonstrates the two-faced gimmick of China’s “united front” strategy. Despite the strongest earthquake to hit the nation in 25 years striking Hualien on April 3, which caused