On June 16, the last day of the most recent session of the Legislative Yuan, negotiations between the government and opposition parties on constitutional reform broke down, putting them back to square one. At the end of last year, following the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) dismal performance in November’s nine-in-one elections, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) pledged that his party would launch a constitutional reform process, but this promise has become a mere illusion as government and opposition parties give greater consideration to wrangling for power. Now it is anybody’s guess when hopes for changing the “status quo” can be rekindled.
Faced with this breakdown of the constitutional reform process, the two main parties are only interested in blaming one another. They have not reflected upon why they have failed to adjust their strategies during the course of negotiations in a way that would allow Taiwanese to decide whether each issue can pass the test of public opinion.
Civic constitutional reform groups are furious and they are promising to mobilize voters to punish those “villains of history” who are standing in the way of constitutional reform. If that is to be done, the foremost task is to analyze the facts to determine which presidential or legislative candidates should be held responsible, because only then can voters be mobilized to teach them a lesson.
One of the reasons there has been much talk but little action over the proposals for constitutional reform is that the KMT has been having trouble finding someone to stand as its presidential candidate. This issue has attracted the attention of the media and opinion leaders, pushing the issue of constitutional reform to the sidelines; even though it has such important implications for civil rights, it has not been possible to form a strong-enough social force to push for the desired reforms.
The two big parties, which have the power to reform the Constitution, operate under the logic of game theory and they would rather use the breakdown of negotiations as an opportunity to blame the other side than sit down and cooperate with their rivals. Even on proposals on which the two sides say they have “a high degree of consensus,” such as lowering the voting age and lowering the threshold for parties to hold at-large seats in the legislature, in the end nothing has been achieved. This is the sad outcome of the two sides’ mutual trickery and intransigence.
In retrospect, the option of maintaining the “status quo” in the constitutional order would seem on the surface to be the safest choice for the two main parties. However, this involves losing the chance to use a referendum to set a core agenda with constitutional authority and inspire the public to take part in debates and action to do with constitutional reform. Maybe the ruling party does not care about the profound implications of having the public take part in politics, but for the opposition party, this might cause the forthcoming presidential and legislative elections to be restricted to the single issue of unification versus independence and cross-strait relations, with the Democratic Progressive Party standing to lose more than it gains.
Meanwhile, the ongoing wave of protests against adjustments to school textbooks is showing Taiwanese adults that the current generation of senior-high school students are mature enough to think independently. Even though the age at which they enjoy suffrage will not be lowered in time to directly influence the political scene, they have already upset the traditional political environment. One can only wonder whether the KMT really wants the votes of the younger generation in next year’s elections.
Ku Chung-hwa is convener of the National Alliance of Constitutional Reform.
Translated by Julian Clegg
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