On Sunday, while attending the celebration of the 58th anniversary of the enacting of the Constitution of the Republic of China (ROC), Chinese Nationalist Party Chairman (KMT) Ma Ying-jeou (
Ma believes that the crisis stems from the fact that an effective way of implementing the Constitution -- and its provision for five branches of government in particular -- is yet to be found. Given this fact, it is ironic that the pan-blue camp has blocked the review of President Chen Shui-bian's (
The National Communications Commission (NCC) is a classic example of how the pan-blues abuse their legislative majority to threaten the Cabinet, forcing the Executive Yuan to consider requesting a constitutional interpretation on the matter. In a recent meeting between Ma and People First Party Chairman James Soong (
The spirit of the Constitution tends to favor a dual-executive system, with the right to nominate the premier vested in the president. The Constitution has no provision for what to do in the case of an opposition majority, and this still awaits the establishment of precedent. It should not be up to the pan-blue camp to make its own constitutional interpretations and demand that the president hand over his right to nominate the premier, despite a complete lack of precedent for this.
Taiwan's constitutional crisis is not simply a question of implementation, for it is an undisputed fact that in some respects the document presents some serious practical difficulties. The Constitution of the ROC has had a turbulent history, for soon after it was promulgated in 1947, civil war broke out and the Constitution was suspended. After martial law ended, the Constitution went through seven rounds of amendment, but as the document had been drawn up in reference to the vast and populous lands of China, no amount of tinkering could adapt it adequately to the needs of a small island like Taiwan. This is the strongest argument in favor of constitutional reform.
Although the pan-blue boycott on reviewing the nominees for the Control Yuan is absurd, it has highlighted the fact that although this branch of government has basically ceased to function over the last year, it has had little impact. Given this fact, would it not be appropriate to change to a three branch system of government? And as the current duel-executive system has resulted in an impasse that has persisted over many years, should not a solution be sought by altering the Constitution? In 1949 the ROC ceased to exist in all but name, and it cannot effectively speak for the people of Taiwan. Can we continue to ignore this problem? Seven attempts at constitutional amendment have failed to resolve the situation. Isn't it time to forge a new path by changing the nation's title and re-writing the Constitution for Taiwan?
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS