Constitution must stay current

After his announcement on Sunday that he would push for a new Constitution for Taiwan in 2006, President Chen Shui-bian yesterday addressed the subsequent suspicions and criticism during a meeting of the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) Central Standing Committee. Chen again stressed that Taiwan has an urgent need for a new Constitution.

His remarks are expected to trigger heated debate among the nation's political parties and in the media, which could pave the way for resolving the political chaos that has beset Taiwan for many years.

Questions regarding the suitability of the current Constitution, which was enacted in China in 1947, have been part of the political scene since Taiwan's first direct presidential election in 1996. The Constitution has since been amended six times, but major questions regarding the country's reforms were repeatedly sidelined due to the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) various political considerations. As a result, the DPP government has been unable to fulfill its major campaign promises regarding political reforms, due to its lack of a majority in the legislature.

As Chen pointed out, questions regarding legislative reforms -- such as reducing the number of seats by half and setting up a single-member district system -- need to be resolved quickly. The same is true for questions such as whether a plurality or absolute majority system should be adopted for presidential elections, whether to adopt a parliamentary or presidential system and whether to have a five-branch or three-branch government. Only then can the country achieve political stability, instead of running into partisan quarrels on the legislative floor over the same old political issues every year, which creates a chaotic impression of Taiwan's politics and leads to public dissatisfaction about the inefficiency of the legislature.

Although political considerations play a role in Chen's raising of the Constitution issue at this point, if Taiwan does not resolve these major constitutional issues one by one and move toward an advanced democratic system, the nation's democracy will continue to make a bad impression on the international community and the legislature will become an international laughing stock. This will cause great damage to the dignity of Taiwan and its people. At the same time, the massive government machine will remain as it is now, continuing to suck the people dry of their tax money and pointlessly keeping a large bunch of civil servants who have nothing to do.

A state leader should, of course, present views with foresight, even if reforms conducive to the interests of the public cannot be immediately implemented. However, he has the responsibility to continually remind the people that the problems facing Taiwan's system and government operations now and in the future should be resolved through discussions among a vast majority of the people and by building social consensus to promote a reasonable path to reform.

This is what a responsible government should do. The issues of constitutional amendments and writing a new Constitution should not be viewed as a "Taiwan indepen-dence conspiracy."

In no way is the current Constitution suitable to Taiwan's current status, given the thriving development of democracy and freedom. The Constitution exists to promote the supreme interests of the people. It is not true that the people cannot amend the Constitution or write a new one simply to maintain its integrity. The Constitution, therefore, needs to change along with the times. The pro-unification camp need not panic.

Chen seeks plebiscite on Constitution

`BY THE PEOPLE': The president said a new Constitution is needed to strengthen the nation's democracy and criticized the KMT's record on constitutional reform

By Chang Yun-Ping

STAFF REPORTER

After calling on Sunday for the birth of a new Constitution in 2006, President Chen Shui-bian said yesterday constitutional changes should be decided by the people of Taiwan through a referendum.

"The structure of the constitutional framework can't be decided solely by the president himself or a party, but needs the participation of the people of the country," he said. "The final version of the new Constitution has to be decided by the people directly through a referendum."

Chen made the comments prior to the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) weekly closed-door Central Standing Committee meeting yesterday.

He said the country needs a new Constitution in 2006 to deepen democracy and pursue a more efficient constitutional structure 10 years after the first direct presidential election was held in 1996, a symbol that will ensure Taiwan's sovereignty.

"If the direct presidential election in 1996 is a symbol of Taiwan's sovereignty as a democratic country, this `complete' state will become 10 years old in 2006. After 10 years of democratic practice, we must think about what we are going to pursue in the next phase," Chen said.

"We must deepen democracy and pursue a more efficient constitutional structure to lead the people of Taiwan to face the challenges of the new century," he said.

Chen added that previous constitutional amendments were targeted at individual issues and resulted in disorderly and partial adjustments.

"There was no way to fix it once and for all and therefore many problems remain unresolved," Chen said.

He said political and social adjustments require changes to the Constitution, which would greatly affect the rights and obligations of the people as well as national competitiveness.

Chen said these adjustments include reducing by half the number of legislative seats, adopting a two-vote system in a single electoral district and choosing between a presidential system and a Cabinet system.

"A national leader must think ahead to make citizens' pay attention to this issue and promote civic consciousness," he said. "This historic mission bestowed on every national leader can't be treated as a `boring' matter."

He was responding to criticism from Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan on Monday that Chen's ideas on a new Constitution were "boring."

Chen yesterday said the DPP will not repeat the mistakes of the former KMT government, which dominated work on previous constitutional changes.

"We think successful constitutional change would incorporate people's will, consensus among political parties and opinions from constitutional experts," Chen said.

Chen's speech yesterday did not mention his "Five Nos" promise: no declaration of independence, no change in the nation's title, no referendum to change the status quo, no incorporating the "special state-to-state" theory in the Constitution and no abandoning the National Reunification Council.

DPP Deputy Secretary-General Lee Ying-yuan said yesterday that Chen's announcement did not contradict his "Five Nos" policy and that the DPP's stance on the sovereignty issue, including whether to change the country's name, is based on the "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." The resolution, made in 1999, stated that any change to the status quo should be decided by the people of Taiwan.

New Constitution for a new nation

By Joseph Wu

President Chen Shui-bian declared at the DPP anniversary party that 2006 would be a good time for Taiwan to draft a new Constitution. The proclamation was immediately denounced by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP) as setting an agenda to pursue Taiwan's independence.

However, for anyone who understands the country's painful history of political development, drafting a new Constitution is certainly more than an agenda for pursuing Taiwan's independence.

The Constitution of modern-day Taiwan was drafted in 1947 in Nanjing, China, by the KMT government. The Constitution was designed to suit the large and populous China.

The KMT government was defeated by the communists in 1949 and was forced to retreat to Taiwan to regroup. But the KMT government continued to lay claims of sovereignty over China. Subsequently, they made the Nanjing Constitution the supreme legal document in Taiwan.

As Taiwan's democratization gained momentum in the late 1980s, the fallacies and problems inherent in the Constitution were brought to the attention of liberal intellectuals. For example, the system of government follows neither the American presidential model nor the British parliamentary model. According to the Constitution, the top leader did not have to be elected and the electoral systems for the three chambers of parliament caused confusion. And the government had an Examination Yuan that collided with the Bureau of Civil Administration.

While some argued that Taiwan had to write a new Constitution to straighten out all the problems and allow the Constitution to be based on a single philosophy, many thought that a slight revision would suffice. The KMT, which had the majority in both the National Assembly and the Legislative Yuan, ignored the voices calling for the drafting of a new Constitution.

Subsequently, six rounds of revisions were made by the KMT government after martial law was lifted. Some of these revisions were quite significant -- as in the case of the provisions calling for direct elections of the president, the streamlining of the Taiwan Provincial Government and the "suspension" of the National Assembly.

However, the problems continue to arise and issues are as confusing as ever, despite the efforts by the previous KMT administration. There is still intense debate about whether Taiwan's political system is presidential, parliamentary or semi-presidential.

The electoral system of the legislature still encourages party infighting and discourages party discipline. The Taiwan Provincial Government still exists and legally the National Assembly continues to be the body responsible for revising the Constitution.

The widely different interpretations of the constitutionality of rewriting the Constitution have thus become one of the most serious impediments to Taiwan's democratic consolidation.

The KMT and the PFP to this day argue that, since the DPP does not have a majority in the Legislative Yuan, Chen should (according to the French semi-presidential model) be stripped of any real political power. On the campaign trail, Soong continues to brag about his record as the Taiwan governor and argues that it was a mistake to streamline the Provincial Government.

To any political scientist, constant debate over the Constitution, the ultimate rulebook for all political games in any democracy, is one of the most serious threats to the survival of a young democracy.

Moreover, legislators have the responsibility to adopt proposals for the revision of the Constitution, but the quality of the legislators -- as a result of the electoral system -- has caused serious public distrust.

The public has even voiced its desire for a drastic reduction of the number of the legislators, as was evidenced in the 2001 Legislative Yuan elections when all the major political parties signed a petition to do just that. Alas, once the politicians were comfortably elected, nothing happened.

The public consensus seems to be that a referendum has become the most important means to bypass the entanglement of the legislative process. It therefore must be given proper constitutional status -- as it has in many other democracies -- as a means to amend the Constitution.

All of these issues require a comprehensive examination of the Constitution and the adoption of a new Constitution.

The KMT government had its chance to revise the Constitution in installments, but failed miserably. It is time for Taiwan to think of a suitable package that will properly represent our modern society, for it makes no sense for any major politician or political party to participate in a presidential election while arguing that the president should have no executive power.

At the threshold of Taiwan's democratic consolidation, the DPP -- as a responsible government and a responsible political party -- believes that the public ought to think about adopting a new Constitution.

The DPP believes that 2006 marks an appropriate time to address the adoption of a new Constitution. It is timely because the legislative elections will be concluded at the end of next year and a two-year period will be ample time for the country to have sufficient discussions and for political parties to work out their differences.

Joseph Wu is the deputy secretary-general to the president.

US reminds Chen of campaign promises

STABILITY STRESSED: The State Department and regional experts in Washington say it is hard to gauge Chen Shui-bian's intentions toward constitutional reforms

By Charles Snyder

STAFF REPORTER IN WASHINGTON

Reaction in Washington to President Chen Shui-bian's plan for a new Constitution was subdued Monday as officials and Taiwan-watchers struggled to figure out what he was planning to do and the scope of the constitutional changes he envisions.

But the George W. Bush administration was said to be angered that it was not informed beforehand of Chen's comments, a replay of the anger Washington officials felt when Chen announced his "one country on either side" of the Taiwan Strait remarks last year and his plans to hold a referendum during next March's presidential election.

Some observers feel that Washington might expect Chen to send an envoy to Washington to explain his intentions, as Mainland Affairs Council Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen traveled to Washington af-ter Chen's earlier declaration.

The State Department's initial reaction was tentative. When asked, department spokesman Richard Boucher pointed to Chen's 2000 election pledge not to change the name of Taiwan, not to declare independence, not to add the "state-to-state" model to the Constitution and not to promote a referendum on independence or unification with China.

"We have expressed our support and appreciation for that pledge ... [and] we continue to take it very seriously," Boucher said.

"Our position is clear: that President Chen has said these things, and that we continued to take them seriously and believe they should be adhered to," he said. Boucher described the pledges as "fundamental to stability in the Taiwan Strait."

But he refused to get into the domestic Taiwanese political ramifications of Chen's pronouncement.

Specialists on Taiwan noted that it is still too early to say what Chen meant in the few sentences he devoted to the pledge, made during the Democratic Progressive Party's 17th birthday celebration, to draft a new Constitution in 2006.

"There is so little information that it is hard to make a judgment," said Richard Bush, former head of the American Institute in Taiwan and now director of the Brookings Institute's Center for Northeast Asia Policy Studies.

"Unless you can know whether this is more constitutional amendments to fix the problems in the current system, or something much more than that, it's hard to say," he said.

Bush said he did not necessarily read Chen's statement as meaning Chen plans to use constitutional reform to declare something akin to independence.

"Until we have more details, I think it's premature to jump to that kind of conclusion," he said.

John Tkacik, a scholar with the Heritage Foundation who has studied Taiwan for decades, feels that the administration's reaction will be to play down Chen's remarks.

The State Department's reaction is likely to be "this is the silly season in Taiwan, and you simply have to put up with it," Tkacik said, using the phrase "silly season" to mean the runup to the election.

"This is very vague" and is "not spelled out with any specificity," he said.

"Whatever happens," he said, "it is not going to be that big a deal."

But Shelly Rigger, a professor at Davidson College in North Carolina and a leading US expert on Taiwan, feels that the administration "will look at it as another unwelcome and unexpected surprise comparable to `one country on either side.' I don't think this administration wants to have the Taiwan issue heat up right now."

"My expectation is that the people in Washington might be a little bit disappointed that Taiwan was putting the issue forward again, when I'm not sure that there is perceived to be any need for a change [in Taiwan's international status] right now," she said in a telephone interview.

Beijing's reaction might be muted in view of the fact that Chen's statement might be seen as a mere campaign ploy, some observers say.

"In a way, that helps [Chen] deflect the anxiety of the people of Beijing," Rigger said.

Presidential Office, Cabinet defend president

By Lin Chieh-yu and Ko Shu-ling

STAFF REPORTERS , WITH AFP

"It's a country's internal affair to conduct constitutional reform. No other nation has any right to interfere or criticize our initiative to overhaul the country's constitutional structure."－Lin Chia-lung, cabinet spokesman

The Presidential Office yesterday defended President Chen Shui-bian's recent call for a new Constitution before the end of 2006, saying that such a timetable is an issue of the nation's democratic development rather than the debate between independence and unification.

The Executive Yuan also spoke out in Chen's defense, saying the US must understand and support Chen's promise to rewrite the Constitution and that neither the US nor China have any right to intervene in or criticize the nation's domestic affairs.

"The president proposed a new vision and concept of the country's Constitutional framework for future development," said Presidential Office spokesman James Huang.

"As the head of state, the president has the responsibly to indicate the direction and let the public ultimately make the decision," he said.

"The president's remarks have nothing to do with independence or unification and will not affect his `five no's' promises made in his inauguration speech," Huang said.

He reminded the public that a pre-condition of Chen's "five no's" was that China take no military action against Taiwan.

Huang refused to say if the government has assigned an official to discuss Chen's remark with the US government, but he did say that the communications between Taiwan and Washington remain close.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao used a National Day address in Beijing yesterday to warn Taiwan against seeking indepen-dence, while saying peaceful unification remained his government's preferred solution.

"We will always adhere to the `one China' principle and stand firmly opposed to any splittist activities by `Taiwan independence' separatists," Wen said in his first National Day speech since becoming prime minister in March.

In response to Wen's remarks and comments from US officials, Cabinet Spokesman Lin Chia-lung told reporters yesterday that constitutional reform was a matter of Taiwan's internal affairs and other countries should not try to intervene.

"It's a country's internal affair to conduct constitutional reform. No other nation has any right to interfere or criticize our initiative to overhaul the country's constitutional structure," Lin said.

Lin said that Beijing has been poking its nose into the nation's domestic affairs over the years, commenting on the direct presidential elections, constitutional amendments and the holding of a referendum.

"The 23 million Taiwanese people have exercised utmost wisdom in this regard and I believe we'll do the same this time," Lin said.

Meanwhile, a political observer commented yesterday that Chen's remarks should be analyzed only from the presidential campaign angle, saying people should know that a new Constitution is necessary to build Taiwan into a normal country.

"The significance of the president's remark is not only to set the media's agenda but also to set a clear direction for Taiwan," said Ku Chung-hwa, president of the Taipei Society.

Ku said that since former president Lee Teng-hui announced his "special state-to-state" model of cross-strait relations in 1999, the issue of defending Taiwan's sovereignty had become a common goal of the country.

Ku said Taiwan had experienced the most controversial and tense moment after Lee's 1999's remarks and that "subsequent discussions about Taiwan's sovereignty will become less sensitive."

"Chen can use the opportunity to describe how the DPP will build Taiwan into a normal country by giving more details," Ku said. "The more Chen and the DPP talk, the easier it will be for the public to accept those idea as realities."

In related news, Lin announced yesterday that the Cabinet will give its approval today to withdrawing the draft initiative and referendum bill that it sent to the legislature for review over a year ago.

"To expedite passage of the referendum law, we have decided to withdraw our version and endorse that of the Democratic Progressive Party's [DPP] legislative caucus," he said.

The DPP draft gives the people the right to initiate a referendum on constitutional-related issues, while the government would only be authorized to initiate referendums on legislative-related issues and public policies.

The government would also be authorized to initiate a referendum if the nation's sovereignty or security was jeopardized by a foreign force. The initiative would have to come from the president and be approved by the Cabinet.