On Sunday, while attending the celebration of the 58th anniversary of the enacting of the Constitution of the Republic of China (ROC), Chinese Nationalist Party Chairman (KMT) Ma Ying-jeou (
Ma believes that the crisis stems from the fact that an effective way of implementing the Constitution -- and its provision for five branches of government in particular -- is yet to be found. Given this fact, it is ironic that the pan-blue camp has blocked the review of President Chen Shui-bian's (
The National Communications Commission (NCC) is a classic example of how the pan-blues abuse their legislative majority to threaten the Cabinet, forcing the Executive Yuan to consider requesting a constitutional interpretation on the matter. In a recent meeting between Ma and People First Party Chairman James Soong (
The spirit of the Constitution tends to favor a dual-executive system, with the right to nominate the premier vested in the president. The Constitution has no provision for what to do in the case of an opposition majority, and this still awaits the establishment of precedent. It should not be up to the pan-blue camp to make its own constitutional interpretations and demand that the president hand over his right to nominate the premier, despite a complete lack of precedent for this.
Taiwan's constitutional crisis is not simply a question of implementation, for it is an undisputed fact that in some respects the document presents some serious practical difficulties. The Constitution of the ROC has had a turbulent history, for soon after it was promulgated in 1947, civil war broke out and the Constitution was suspended. After martial law ended, the Constitution went through seven rounds of amendment, but as the document had been drawn up in reference to the vast and populous lands of China, no amount of tinkering could adapt it adequately to the needs of a small island like Taiwan. This is the strongest argument in favor of constitutional reform.
Although the pan-blue boycott on reviewing the nominees for the Control Yuan is absurd, it has highlighted the fact that although this branch of government has basically ceased to function over the last year, it has had little impact. Given this fact, would it not be appropriate to change to a three branch system of government? And as the current duel-executive system has resulted in an impasse that has persisted over many years, should not a solution be sought by altering the Constitution? In 1949 the ROC ceased to exist in all but name, and it cannot effectively speak for the people of Taiwan. Can we continue to ignore this problem? Seven attempts at constitutional amendment have failed to resolve the situation. Isn't it time to forge a new path by changing the nation's title and re-writing the Constitution for Taiwan?
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS