Just as in the past, a country’s constitution is far from being the public’s main preoccupation, unless a constitutional matter makes the news for some reason. You will not hear it discussed in bars or on talk shows. The US Constitution was written behind closed doors and served as the template for the constitution that rules postwar Japan, essentially a US import. The Japanese were ashamed of it, and initiated movements to draft their own constitution that were ultimately unsuccessful, because ordinary people were simply not engaged.
The best thing that could happen would be for Taiwan to capitalize on the Sunflower movement and mandate that the legislature revise the Republic of China Constitution. Failing that, it will be up to the political parties, whose duty is to amend the Constitution on behalf of citizens in a democratic system. Traditionally, voters have supported parties based on their perceived reliability or their persuasiveness. Today, with the Internet, these parties need to be careful that they do what they promise.
Simple arithmetic shows that, even if the proposal to move the date of the presidential election to the end of April is adopted, there will only be three more months between the end of the legislative session and the presidential election. Two legislative sessions combined is only six months, which is too short to amend the Constitution.
Neither Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) nor Democratic Progressive Party Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) have rushed to call for a conference on Constitutional amendments, and their commitment to the idea has been brought into question.
Historically, it has been the president who has convened such a conference. Neither is president, so how will they justify their positions with regard to the Constitutional amendment process? Decisive action is always best in complicated situations, and Occam’s razor — adopting the solution with the least amount of assumptions — is the best choice of action. This principle has been around for more than 600 years and is particularly relevant in this age of information overload.
A well-written constitution is the perfect exposition of this principle. As it is a law entailing the most basic principles, everything extraneous should be left out. It will serve as the trunk, other laws the branches and the leaves. The problem with the Constitution we have today is that it is as detailed as any other law. If the Constitution can be pitched at the level it should be, it will be successful.
Germany’s Basic Law is meticulous in its detail. However, concerning matters that will change over time, such as elections of the German Bundestag, the Basic Law only says that members of parliament must “be elected in general, direct, free, equal and secret elections.” As for how that should be done in practical terms, it only says, “details shall be regulated by federal law.”
Keep it simple. An attempt to push through a full-scale amendment could end up aiming high and hitting low. The best policy would be to go with the principle of Occam’s razor.
First, details that are at the level of the Constitution, but considered flawed by many — such as regulations on the voting age and the extremely high threshold for passage of an amendment — should be corrected.
Second, any item that is not at the constitutional level should be downgraded to the level to which it belongs. The constitution should only say that “details must be regulated by law.” For example: legislative elections, the number of legislators and the size of constituencies. The details of those matters will change over time and future lawmakers should be able to decide their needs and make changes.
Christian Fan Jiang is deputy convener of the Northern Taiwan Society’s legal and political group.
Translated by Ethan Zhan
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
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
RSS