This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

China High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Taiwan Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 25, 2007 and December 25, 2008.

The criticism in the current article is close to nothing. There are more could be extracted from HISTORY'S IMPLICATIONS FOR TAIWAN'S CONSTITUTION.Mababa 04:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC). The correct link is -- https://jamestown.org/program/historys-implications-for-taiwans-constitution/ Hmortar (talk) 10:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "Criticism from Chinese Communist Party" because all the information has already been stated in the lead section. No new information was given by the quotation. I also removed

"A number of criticisms have been leveled at the ROC constitution. One which has been leveled by supporters of Taiwan independence argues that the constitutional while valid as law, is still illegitimate in that it has never been ratified by people within Taiwan."

This is duplicated elsewhere.

"Another criticism, which has more broad support is that the constitution produces deadlock between the legislature and the executive. Because it was written in the context of an authoritarian government, it is not explicit as to whether the ROC government is presidential or parliamentary."

These sentences contradict. If the first applies, then the system is obviously presidential. If the second applied, then the first is not true. The reforms by Lee Teng-hui (removal of legislative approval of the premier/ministerial appts) clearly made the system presidential. I added info on debate over whether to use a three branch structure, five branch structure, or parliamentary structure.

I also shortened a few things here and there... --Jiang 22:45, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the proofreading. I am not really an expert on this topic. I do not recall reading articles connecting the establishment of Taiwan province with the application of the ROC constitution. It might as well be true, I just wonder if that is really the case. Thank you. :)Mababa 05:16, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I segregated the introduction with the historical background. Though the communist party would probably object this constitution even without reason, CPC still have the legitimate reasons by challenging the legaility of the members of the National Assembly. Thus, I partially reverted that back. The un-democratic process of selecting the Taiwanese delegates was also an important footage of the history and also the argument on the legitimacy of this constitution over Taiwan. Thus I added this piece of information back along with the photos of them. Please let me know if there is any better way to put them together. Thank you.Mababa 07:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To party or not to party.....

"Until October 1946 it was the prerogative of the Central Government in Nanking to select representatives from Taiwan for the National Assembly." ------ Dispatch No.25 from the American Consulate Taipei (Taihoku) to the U.S. Ambassador in Nanking, November 1, 1946, p. 46.[1]

I think the evidence directs to the government, not the party. It was the ROC government deliberately failed to establish the legitimacy of these Taiwanese National Assembly member to represent the Taiwanese people, not the fault of the party. We do not know what is the role of the KMT party in this process, even though Cho Enlai criticized the rest of the National Assembly members to be chosen by the KMT party. I would suggest that we attribute it to the government.Mababa 04:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

if it's the government, then use the term "ROC government". "KMT regime" is ambiguous and not neutral. --Jiang 04:29, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Duly changed as suggested. Thanks for the comment.Mababa 04:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Information on older ROC constitutions should be put in historical development section.--Countakeshi 10:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone add the details and reasons for the past constitution amendments of POC? I believe the development of the constitution is also vitally important. Salt 04:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO where does anyone say Republic of China (Taiwan) Constitution. 中華民國(台灣) 憲法.TingMing 20:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

official title is "Constitution of the Republic of China (Taiwan)" http://www.president.gov.tw/en/prog/news_release/document_content.php?id=1105498684&pre_id=1105498701&g_category_number=409&category_number_2=373&layer=on&sub_category=455 BlueQ99 (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, legally, Taiwan is a province of ROC. 24.14.89.219 (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the area governed by the constitution so laboriously listed in the first paragraph? Why start off with something more informative and introductory like "The Constitution of the Republic of China is the governing document for the Republic of China. It was written in 1947 in for the Republic of China when it was attempting to govern China." Then say somthing about how it was rarely or never fully implemented due to the Chiang dictatorship, and due to the difficulty of applying a document written for China to a small country like Taiwan. Then point out that in recent years it has been modified to fit Taiwan's recent change to democracy. That would make a lot more sense than listing territories.

I'm not a good writer, but if no one else will make the changes I'll try to. Readin (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that more interesting than just the areas currently using the ROC Constitution is the fact the same constitution served both large China under dictatorship during civil war, and small Taiwan in peace and prosperity under democracy. I've rewritten the intro to try to capture that. Readin (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice rewrite, Jiang! Readin (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The content section is very small. I came to this page hoping to learn how the ROC Constitution says the government is supposed to work, but didn't learn much about that. Does anyone know enough about the constitution to provide more details? Readin (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"However, there are proposals being floated, particularly by supporters of Taiwan independence and the supporters of Taiwan localization movement, to replace the current Constitution with a document drafted by the Taiwanese constituencies in Taiwan."

Is this meant to be in reference to ethnically Taiwanese or Taiwanese nationals?

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:National Anthem of the Republic of China which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constitution of the Republic of China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718134843/http://www.twcenter.org.tw/e02/20011224.htm to http://www.twcenter.org.tw/e02/20011224.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I propose to make this edit[2].

"Constitution of Taiwan" is used in various sources [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. Following Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Alternative_names it should usually be mentioned in the beginning of the article.

Also according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#First_sentence, the first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is in plain English. However, a nonspecialist might struggle understanding that the Republic of China is not the commonly known "China" but "Taiwan" instead, as this is very conterintuitive. The current article does not make it clear that this article is about the current constitution of Taiwan, which can be easily clarified through my proposed changes. In the current version, a reader can only indirectly infer it from the history discription in the third paragraph, which is not clear and concise. --2603:8080:1300:664B:9C86:4939:83A7:E4B5 (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]