In the blink of an eye, the first anniversary of the occupation of the Legislative Yuan’s main chamber during the Sunflower movement has arrived.
Superficially, the movement seemed to be caused by social opposition to the government’s handling of the cross-strait service trade agreement and the protest against the dysfunctional legislature. In reality, however, it was the result of immense public discontent over the operation of Taiwan’s constitutional system, and this is something that the ruling and opposition parties are responsible for.
Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng’s (王金平) promise not to conduct talks over the service trade agreement without the passage of an act regulating oversight of cross-strait agreements prompted the end of the student-led occupation. However, there is still no such act, nor has there been any obvious progress in terms of the civic constitutional conference that was called for during the Sunflower movement.
If it is true that the Sunflower movement has changed the young generation, it is also true that, from the perspective of long-term national development, political parties seem reluctant to respond to the public’s calls and are making little progress.
The demand for a civic constitutional conference was never simply a request for narrow constitutional reform, but rather a quest for thoroughly reworking the nation. Reforms of such scale and depth can only be achieved through practical discussions among the grassroots, not just by a few political leaders.
Even though the grassroots constitutional reform movement still needs the involvement of political forces to change the system from within, the substance and direction of constitutional reform should not be determined by the ruling and opposition parties, who place their own interests above public expectations.
Constitutional reform should be initiated by the grassroots and enacted by lawmakers based on public opinion. The public — not political elites horse trading behind closed doors — should be the real masters of the constitutional reform process to preclude previous constitutional reform failures from happening again.
Even if the ruling and opposition parties intend to participate in grassroots-led constitutional reform, the focus of those political parties will remain on the distribution of political resources and the modification of the government system, instead of on the rights of the people. Thus if citizens hope for a complete revamping of the nation, their focus of concern should be on how to become the main driving force behind constitutional reform.
The political awakening, beginning with the questioning of government legitimacy that was brought about by the Sunflower movement ought to convince the public that they should not be the passive participants that they were in the past, and that they are not required to adhere to the school of thought of any particular party or politician on political or constitutional reform issues.
The “we” who are seeking a real constitutional community shared by all should play the leading role in reshaping the Constitution. The fundamental rights of the “us,” the primary focus of the Constitution, should be actualized into the fundamental rights that the Constitution safeguards. Only then can the nation be fully in control of the direction of thorough reform.
The Sunflower movement opened up an opportunity to change the nation. This anniversary should at least mark the beginning for political parties to see things for what they are. Constitutional reform should not consist of negotiations behind closed doors by the legislative party caucuses.
Moreover, since the need for reform has become urgent, the public no longer has the patience to wait for the political parties to play games. Civic groups have already launched a countdown for a constitutional reform process — which political parties have verbally agreed to — as they are urging the legislature to at least pass the third reading of some constitutional reform proposals that are strongly supported by both sides so that those bills can be voted on in a referendum.
How political parties and civic groups go about establishing trustworthy and transparent dialogues to facilitate constitutional reform led by the grassroots and carried out by lawmakers will be determined by the willingness and determination of the ruling and opposition parties.
This is a nation that has long been deprived of a constitutional community. As the public is eager for thorough reform, Taiwan will not be able to afford the consequences of another failure in constitutional reform, and the ensuing collective disappointment and unrest.
Even if the ruling and opposition parties only want to play politics in the short run, ultimately they will not be able to evade the historical guilt and responsibility for failing to reform the Constitution.
So what path of constitutional reform should they choose? The best choice is to have clear conscience and do the best they can.
Liu Ching-yi is a professor in the College of Social Sciences at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Ethan Zhan
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS