Rethinking the constitution
In her inaugural address on May 20, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said she would launch a judicial reform in October. Has she kept her promise? Let’s review it from the Constitution.
The Republic of China Constitution was drafted by a single party, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), adopted by the National Constituent Assembly on Dec. 25, 1946, and went into effect one year later on Dec. 25, 1947.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) did not engage in the drafting process, nor did it accept or recognize the Constitution as the fundamental law of China. On the contrary, it drafted another constitution of Chinese people and kicked the KMT out of China in 1949.
The KMT escaped to Taiwan and resumed office as the exiled government of China by upholding the Constitution that was rejected by all Chinese in China, but it used that constitution to brainwash Taiwanese to convince them they were the real bosses of China.
Seventy years have gone by and now Taiwanese have finally woken up to realize that the ROC Constitution is a forged document voided by 1.3 billion Chinese in China, but forced 23 million Taiwanese into territorial ownership of China and Mongolia. Ironically, Taiwanese were not invited to draft that constitution, but they have to live with it.
At the beginning of this year, Taiwanese finally overthrew the KMT government and the voice of transitional justice roared to the sky.
As a Taiwanese, how should we read the ROC Constitution? Is it Taiwan’s constitution? Who can properly interpret it?
Council of Grand Justices nominee Hsu Chih-hsiung (許志雄) said that Taiwan is a nation, but abnormal.
The ROC was a name abandoned by China and officially replaced by the People’s Republic of China and it is not appropriate using it to identify Taiwan and is confusing to the world that it stands for China, he said. There is no clear boundary of the historical national territory of China, he added.
The Constitution was drawn up in and for China and not tailor-made in or for Taiwan and we need a constitution that appropriately represents Taiwan, he said.
Former grand justice Hsu Tzong-li (許宗力) said that we must first clarify the reasons Taiwan lacks judicial credibility, reduce the workload of judges to take into account efficiency and quality and review the judge evaluation system. In addition, we have to deal with the oft-criticized issues of lawyer qualifications, legal education and dialogue between courts and society and invite the public to get involved in the grand jury system.
We must improve the constitutional review system so people can appeal to the grand justices to interpret the unconditional judgement; establish a tribunal in the court of final appeal to reconstruct a mechanism for unifying legal views, he said.
As for the issue of Hsu’s reappointment, it has been confused with the re-election. It has been more than five years since his retirement as a grand justice in September 2011. There should not be any concerns to his acceptance of the nomination as Judicial Yuan president.
Grand justice nominee Hwang Jau-yuan (黃昭元) in July urged the government to replace the title ROC with “Taiwan.” He said that Taiwanese have major differences in their national identity; some call it the ROC and the others call it Taiwan. He also said the grand justices should maintain political neutrality in political disputes.
Hwang believes that Taiwan has practiced democracy for so many years that it should have left the authoritarian era behind. One should not be forced to express patriotism like in the Cultural Revolution or under Nazi rule, he said, adding that in a democracy, no one should be forced to express one’s position, including one’s identification with national symbols.
All three nominees have honestly pointed out the bottleneck issues in Taiwan that have been neglected for years. Hopefully all of them can be approved and they can plunge into their respective positions right away to work for Taiwan.
Yes, it will be a good start for Tsai keeping her promises made at her inauguration ceremony to launch judicial reform this month. However, that is not enough.
There is still tons of work to be done. Why was former executive secretary of the Executive Yuan Lin Yi-shih (林益世) found guilty, but still at large? Why was former prosecutor-general Huang Shih-ming (黃世銘) found guilty, but allowed to retire with a considerable pension?
Why is former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) still not free? Why has former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) been accused in so many cases, but is still at large and can freely travel around the world? Transitional justice is simply not working.
Taiwan must move toward a normal nation having an appropriate name to identify itself and an appropriate constitution to uphold the nation.
John Hsieh
Hayward, California
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
RSS