Despite an apparent consensus on lowering the threshold for constitutional amendments, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has thrown cold water over Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) proposals that the threshold be lowered.
The KMT’s objections have renewed attention to a Feb. 4 article published by the China Review News Agency (中國評論社) that criticized former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) for presuming to speak for the constitutional reform movement. The article said it was obvious that the Taiwanese independence faction was attempting to rewrite the Constitution under the guise of merely making amendments, adding that reducing the threshold for constitutional amendments was akin to opening Pandora’s box. It pointed to the storm kicked up in 2004 when then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) tried to initiate constitutional change, and the US warned him against making any major moves involving territorial sovereignty.
A lot can happen in 11 years, and it is not necessarily the case that any moves now will result in similar tensions. Also, it was the US that invented the tactic of rewriting a constitution by introducing constitutional amendments. Following World War II, when US forces occupied Japan, the US forced Japan to accept a “foreign constitution” drafted by US lawyers within Allied Command, under the guise of “amending” the Meiji Constitution. Most Japanese only realized what happened after US forces left.
In 1952, with the end of the occupation and full restoration of Japanese sovereignty, there were calls for a new constitution. To this day, nothing has changed, although recently Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, with the blessing of the US, has been in the process of effecting constitutional change.
I am not Japanese, so I cannot comment on why the Japanese have accepted a foreign-imposed constitution all these years. However, the Japanese political commentator said Ito Tetsuo that Taiwan and Japan have something in common, in that both nations have developed a kind of taboo mentality when it comes to seeking a new constitution.
The idea of lowering the threshold for constitutional reform is not entirely unreasonable, especially with regard to the political and military situation in the Asia-Pacific. In addition, the independence movement is actually quite restrained. With the exception of the preface, the contentious part of the Additional Articles of the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution is changing the ROC’s existing national boundaries. At present, the threshold to amend these is the same as that for amending the Constitution, but these are dealt with in separate articles.
Therefore, a high threshold for existing territory, as mentioned in Article 4, could be retained. Meanwhile, the threshold for constitutional amendments as mentioned in Article 12 could be lowered. For the independence faction, Taiwanese and for the international community, retaining a high threshold for independence or unification would provide a welcome security wall.
If a referendum on independence or unification fails, it could well be 10 years before another is held. Therefore, supporters of independence might find a two-stage referendum the best option. This would involve an initial proposal to lower the threshold for changing the “existing territory” and, if agreed, it would show that the public is psychologically prepared for a referendum on unification or independence. If, the proposal is rejected at the initial stage, it would show that the time is not yet ripe.
Christian Fan Jiang is deputy convener of the Northern Taiwan Society’s legal and political group.
Translated by Paul Cooper
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