Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman and presidential candidate Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) has proposed turning Kinmen into an “experimental zone” for peace between Taiwan and China.
Ko said that Kinmen is close to Taiwan and yet it does not affect the nation’s overall entity; if we want to carry out experiments concerning the political and social system, Kinmen would be a great place to do so.
Yet no matter which administrative district is chosen for such an experiment, it would be unconstitutional to put Ko’s proposal in practice, namely, carrying out political and social experiments in relation to autocratic China. Ko’s proposal not only goes against the Constitution’s concept of “defensive democracy,” but also demonstrates how Ko lacks even a basic understanding of democracy and the rule of law.
How exactly would Ko carry out an experiment involving democratic Kinmen and autocratic China? Would he consider suspending Kinmen’s elections or regulating freedom of speech through China’s Great Firewall? Would he consider imposing social controls on Kinmen residents by employing China’s ways, allowing the police to detain whomever they wish, or implementing facial recognition?
Clearly, any experiment regarding changing political and social systems and involving China would damage Kinmen’s freedom and democracy. Given that the Constitution is entirely based on the order of a liberal democracy, Ko’s proposal is clearly unconstitutional.
In Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 499, the constitutional value of “defensive democracy” has been confirmed, stipulating that “Some constitutional provisions are integral to the essential nature of the Constitution and underpin the constitutional normative order. If such provisions are open to change through constitutional amendment, adoption of such amendments would bring down the constitutional normative order in its entirety. Therefore, any such constitutional amendment shall be considered illegitimate, in and of itself. Among various constitutional provisions, Article 1 (the principle of a democratic republic), Article 2 (the principle of popular sovereignty), Chapter II (the protection of constitutional rights), and those providing for the separation of powers, and the principle of checks and balances are integral to the essential nature of the Constitution and constitute the foundational principles of the entire constitutional order. All the constitutionally established organs must adhere to the constitutional order of liberal democracy, as emanating from the said constitutional provisions, on which the current Constitution is founded.”
In short, the power to amend the Constitution and the exercise of such a power should not violate the constitutional order of a liberal democracy; this is based on the principles of a democratic republic, of popular sovereignty and of protecting constitutional rights, as well as the provisions for the separation of powers and the principle of checks and balances.
If any of the proposed amendments contravenes the above principles, the amendment should be considered unconstitutional.
Our Constitution’s “defensive democracy” was based on principles from Europe after they learned a lesson from Nazi Germany. When countries across Europe were redesigning their constitutions, “defensive democracy” was emplaced to prevent the self-destruction or damage of their “constitutional order of liberal democracy.”
Ko’s proposal would damage Kinmen’s “constitutional order of liberal democracy,” hence it violates the Constitution’s “defensive democracy.” Ko’s proposal is by all means unconstitutional.
Huang Di-ying is a lawyer and chairman of the Taiwan Forever Association.
Translated by Emma Liu
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
Minister of National Defense Wellington Koo (顧立雄) has said that the armed forces must reach a high level of combat readiness by 2027. That date was not simply picked out of a hat. It has been bandied around since 2021, and was mentioned most recently by US Senator John Cornyn during a question to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday. It first surfaced during a hearing in the US in 2021, when then-US Navy admiral Philip Davidson, who was head of the US Indo-Pacific Command, said: “The threat [of military
RSS