Several Democratic Progressive Party legislators, headed by members of the Taiwan Normal Country Promotion Association, have proposed a constitutional amendment “toward the normalization of the country,” which has aroused concerns.
China’s Taiwan Affairs Office spokesman Ma Xiaoguang (馬曉光) said: “Do not go further on the evil road leading to independence via constitutional amendment. Stop before it is too late. Play with fire and you will get burned.” Although Ma was singing the same old tune, the issue of constitutional amendments is particularly sensitive given the tensions in cross-strait relations and between Taiwan, the US and China.
Amending the preamble of the Additional Articles of the Constitution (憲法增修條文) — by removing the words “national unification” and inserting that the nation’s territory is defined as the area where the Constitution applies — has always been seen by Beijing as a red line that must not be crossed.
The reason is simple: Once the truth behind “the emperor’s new clothes” — the assumption that the nation’s territory includes all China — is revealed and the Constitution is amended to conform to reality, the geographical and historical relationship between the Republic of China (ROC) and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) would be almost completely decoupled, leaving only Kinmen and Matsu as disputed territories.
The argument that both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to “one China” would prove itself to be false, and the view that there is “one China” and “one Taiwan” would become established.
The ROC represented China after 1912 and later fought against the PRC over the right to govern and represent it. However, since the ROC retreated to Taiwan, the rivalry between the sides is not a mere continuation of the Chinese Civil War.
The proposal to sever Taiwan’s ties with China has obviously become the target of hostility from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and other pro-China political parties.
How long will it be before this contradiction between the outdated Constitution and the constitutional reality is resolved?
The CCP’s “one China” principle is based on the extent of the sovereignty claims of the ROC. Even if the ROC government does not continue the fight to represent China, it remains in the Constitution.
Based on the Constitution, the Criminal Code (刑法) is still applicable to China, a point made clear by Australian academic James Crawford, a judge at the International Court of Justice, who in the second edition of his book The Creation of States in International Law said: “Taiwan is not a state because it still has not unequivocally asserted its separation from China and is not recognized as a state distinct from China.”
Whether it is because of pressure from China or from political parties in Taiwan, the fear of changing the Constitution and other behaviors seemingly intended to “maintain the status quo” are eroding Taiwan’s living space and status in the international community.
To put it more bluntly — continued adherence to the “one China” framework set up by Beijing and the historical legacy of the Chinese Civil War greatly increases the risk that China will annex Taiwan by force.
The proposed constitutional amendment to normalize the nation’s status and constitutional referendums initiated by the civil sector are not about changing the “status quo,” but rather about establishing reality.
According to a recent opinion poll conducted by the Taiwanese Public Opinion Foundation, as much as 83.4 percent of respondents said that the ROC’s territory includes Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu and a few smaller islands. It is reasonable to amend the Constitution in a way that makes it consistent with something Taiwanese agree on.
Only those who side with China regard a possible constitutional amendment as a “change” in the cross-strait relations. Just as Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has said: “Some foreigners with full stomachs and nothing better to do are interfering in our affairs.”
It is up to us Taiwanese to decide whether we should amend the Constitution or write a new one.
Chen Kuan-fu is a graduate law student at National Taipei University.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
RSS