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
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