Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (
Ma seems to suggest that targeting the seven flawed constitutional amendments since the 1990s. But in reality, they reflect his constant opposition to the path of democratic reform Taiwan has pursued over the past 20 years.
If Ma is elected president and implements his ideas, the sovereignty that are a part of democratic reform will suffer a major blow.
A policy should be judged on its effectiveness, not on superficial elements such as its name or popular appeal.
But many politicians employ lofty slogans meant to inspire dedicated support, even to the point of risking our welfare.
Just like the "third wave of reform" proposed by vice president and KMT presidential candidate Lien Chan (
But the true goal of his reform plans are to overturn past reforms, putting us back to square one.
This is not a personal attack against Ma. A look at Ma's record over his political career shows that he has often opposed key reforms at critical times. Ma was, for example, against the lifting of martial law and direct presidential elections.
A correspondent for the Yomiuri Shimbun in Hong Kong once said: "In all the countries of Asia I have never seen a more eloquent speaker than Ma. We know that he is defending an unreasonable system, but he does it very skillfully."
A US reporter also said it was obvious Ma uses propaganda to cover up key KMT issues, but it would be difficult for the public not to like him because he is so good at listing endless examples and facts that muddle the issues.
When Ma's words are not convincing enough, he makes up for it with his charm, the journalist said, adding that Ma is a great salesman for the KMT.
It's not an exaggeration to see Ma as the KMT's personal makeup artist for covering the blemishes of the Martial Law era.
Ma the beautician has consistently obstructed reforms in recent years.
So why has he suddenly started advocating democratic reforms? Has Ma become a believer, suddenly inspired by democratic values? Or is this a trick to put the KMT back in the presidential office?
Everyone knows the answer. Ma has criticized all seven constitutional reforms over the past 15 years, saying that each was approved just for the sake of exercise, not because they would improve our democracy.
This is why Ma is waiting and observing.
It is true that the past seven amendments have only scratched the surface of problems with the Constitution. But the solution is certainly not to put aside constitutional issues for the first two years of Ma's term if he is elected president.
The solution should be to gain a deeper understanding of why these amendments have been unable to solve the problems facing the country.
The source of the Constitution's main flaws is simple. The Constitution was drawn up with China in mind -- not legislated -- by lawmakers who propagated for a "greater China."
Its core values are not ours and it was written by politicians who did not represent us. The KMT regime fled to Taiwan soon after writing the Constitution. To put it in plain terms: The current Constitution was meant for a different people in a different time.
When the KMT regime was kicked out of China, it ripped its Constitution out by its roots and brought it along to Taiwan with a "greater China" ideology still intact.
Even more tragic is that KMT rulers, after declaring martial law in Taiwan, implemented the Period of National Mobilization for Suppression of the Communist Rebellion, which froze the Constitution along with the rights and election mechanisms enshrined in it.
Taiwan's political mechanisms have sadly not yet been freed of the "greater China" ideology and its authoritarian tradition. To solve Taiwan's constitutional predicament, the real issue is not what part of the Constitution to amend.
A new constitution is necessary, written by Taiwanese for Taiwanese and consistently democratic.
The Constitution is beyond hope. It couldn't be fixed by the past seven amendments and certainly can't be fixed by Ma.
Amendments are tiny changes, temporary patches to win votes rather than part of a long-term strategy to build a Taiwanese constitution.
Translated by Eddy Chang and Lin Ya-ti
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 Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
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