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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
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
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry