With his inauguration speech, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) has successfully negotiated several dangers which the Americans, the Chinese and the Taiwanese people themselves have created. For example, Chen has received considerable criticism from both the Chinese and the Americans about his plan for a new constitution. The Chinese complained this amounted to a declaration of independence and the Americans urged caution so as not to upset the Chinese. The inconsistency of the Chinese, who have had at least four state constitutions since the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949, has become lost in the rhetoric.
Taiwan clearly does need a new constitution. A Constitution written for a dictatorship of half a billion people in 1947 does not work for a democracy of 23 million people in the 21st century. Some two-thirds of the Constitution's articles require revision or excision. In addition, the new constitution will need to account for changes in institutions as Taiwan adapts its government to its new democratic climate.
Clearly, a new constitution will require substantial support within Taiwan to be legitimate. This important process of gathering consensus in both the preparation and the approval of the document cannot be rushed.
In order to gain this consensus, Chen has compromised. Rather than have the new constitution approved by referendum, he has declared that the new constitution should be approved by the processes laid out in the current Constitution, which use the National Assembly. Chen hopes that the new constitution will incorporate the use of referendums for future constitutional revisions.
In addressing China, Chen also expressed moderation. He reiterated the "five noes" when he "reaffirmed the promises and principles set forth in my inaugural speech in 2000." He restated that the new constitution would not change Taiwan's national sovereignty or territory or touch on issues of unification and independence, in part because Taiwan itself has not reached consensus on these issues.
Chen noted that the future of the relationship with China remained undetermined and there could even be unification between the two sides. However, he stressed that any decision about Taiwan's future must have "the consent of the 23 million people of Taiwan."
Chen stated he would establish a committee with people from all political parties and various walks of life to outline plans for peaceful development across the Strait. Again, he is seeking to broaden agreement across society as a whole.
A considerable part of Chen's speech attempts to bring together the divided people of Taiwan. Even though it was clear on election night that the pan-blue camp required new leadership, the ongoing saga of the recount -- which Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) prolonged by his continuous adding of new conditions -- has postponed these changes. The old leadership of Lien and People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) continues to attempt to extend its rule through such maneuvers as unification of the blue parties and mandatory attendance at the protest rally on inauguration day.
A vibrant democracy requires a strong opposition. Clearly the KMT needs to rejuvenate itself and certainly it cannot do so if it relies primarily on Mainlanders for support.
Let us hope, for the sake of Taiwan's democracy, that the pan-blue camp can reinvigorate itself so that the Dec. 11 legislative elections prove both fair and competitive.
Bruce Jacobs is professor of Asian languages and cultures and director of the Taiwan Research Unit at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS