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
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing