Article 16 of the 1789 French “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen” says that “[a] society in which the observance of the law is not assured, nor the separation of powers defined, has no constitution at all.”
This sentence clearly encapsulates the modern understanding of what a constitution should do.
In addition to containing many flaws in its treatment of the separation of powers and the establishment of proper checks and balances, Taiwan’s Constitution also contains many issues concerning the guarantee of human rights that have been waiting for many years to be addressed.
To be more specific, the Constitution is quite specific when it comes to the first generation of basic human rights — civil and political rights — but when it comes to the second-generation human rights — economic, social and cultural rights — it is out of step with the times.
Furthermore, the Constitution has nothing at all to say when it comes to the third generation of human rights that have been added since the 1970s — generally described as collective rights — or the establishment of a national human rights commission.
In addition to these rights, there are also such rights as the inviolability of human dignity, due legal process, privacy rights, the right of access to the media and the right to health.
These are all basic human rights that the Constitution does not address directly but they have been incidentally addressed by the Council of Grand Justices in its constitutional interpretations over the past dozen years.
Although these interpretations represent a great improvement, the fact that the Constitution has failed to adapt to changing times has meant that these precious human rights advances have not been included in the document.
On the contrary, people are forced to assemble a protection of these rights from examining parts of the Council of Grand Justices’ constitutional interpretations.
Such a backward legal system is not only a hindrance to building a public understanding and awareness of constitutional law, it also has a negative impact on the universal spread of human rights education.
To bring the level of human rights protection in the Constitution into line with international human rights instruments so that Taiwan can reach the same level as advanced democracies around the world, it is necessary to carry out a major amendment of the Constitution to deal with the shortfall of human rights in it.
On Tuesday last week, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), referring to an opinion poll by the National Development Council, said that mainstream public opinion did not agree with amending the Constitution.
However, a closer look at the 20 questions in the poll shows that the only question that was related to the human rights issue was the question of whether or not the age limit for the right to vote should be lowered from 20 to 18 years.
It is highly regrettable that the president would use an official poll lacking in credibility as a basis for an all out rejection of the possibility of expanding the list of human rights included in the Constitution.
Is the government’s policy pledge to “respect, protect and fulfill human rights” nothing but a political slogan aimed at deceiving the public?
Lo Cheng-chung is assistant professor in the Institute of Financial and Economic Law at Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology.
Translated by Perry Svensson
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS