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
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
RSS