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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS