At an event last month marking the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) 31st anniversary, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) called for constitutional reform, and major constitutional reform is exactly what Taiwan needs. Bizarrely, constitutional reform relies on selfishness and conflict between political parties rather than academic debate and evaluation.
Although politicians are aware of the Constitution’s apparent flaws, there is a great furor, and neither the ruling party nor the opposition parties are willing to push for constitutional reform.
The reason is simple: politicians are not saints. Those in power are reluctant to give up their political advantages, which grant them great power, but little responsibility, while those in opposition, who lack sufficient power and therefore try to win public support by promoting constitutional reform, would become just like their predecessors once elected.
According to the law, a constitutional amendment must first be passed by a legislative quorum of at least three-quarters of all legislators and gain the support of at least three-quarters of present legislators. Six months after the result has been announced, the amendment must be confirmed in a referendum by at least half of all eligible voters in “the free area of the Republic of China [ROC].”
This is an excessively high threshold. There have been two opportunities for constitutional reform. One was practical: In 2008, then-president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) had a good opportunity, as the pan-blue camp held three-quarters of the seats in the legislature, but he has proven himself to be a selfish man.
The second opportunity is theoretical: Political leaders must be willing to diminish their their power in exchange for a place in history. Tsai will need a good strategy.
The Constitution can be considered dead in any number of ways. It was first scrapped when the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) implemented a temporary constitution, known as the Common Program of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference. It later died several deaths as the CCP amended the PRC’s constitution on five separate occasions. Having scrapped the original Constitution in the first place, the CCP has no right to criticize Taiwan’s plans to amend it.
How can the Constitution, adopted in China in 1946, continue to bind Taiwanese? It was not until 1952 that Taiwanese were recognized as citizens of the ROC in the Treaty of Taipei.
When the Constitution was first passed, Taiwanese were still Japanese subjects, had no ROC citizenship and no right to vote or participate in its drafting — not to mention the right to amend it.
There is only one thing that can explain how the ROC ended up adopting something China no longer wanted. When Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) occupied Taiwan and the Penghu archipelago, there was no basic law for ruling the territory, so the abandoned Constitution, with its centralized approach to government, came in handy.
Whether the Constitution had been scrapped was irrelevant, as Chiang only needed a basic law to rule Taiwan and Penghu, which he occupied following the signing of the Treaty of San Francisco.
After October 1949, the so-called Constitution can only be seen as a basic law. Taiwan gained de facto autonomy in 1979 and held popular elections for the whole government in 1996.
In the past, only the military governor could amend the basic law, but now the citizens of Taiwan and the Penghu archipelago can participate in its amendment.
What remains to be seen is if Taiwanese politicians are willing to give up some of their power for a place in history.
HoonTing is a political commentator.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with