Ever since undermining Taiwan's democracy became the "in" thing, members of opposition parties have been saying that it is time to topple the Cabinet.
The Non-Partisan Solidarity Union (NPSU) -- which in actuality is none of those things -- has even called on the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to formally endorse a campaign to oust the Cabinet.
KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
If the Legislative Yuan forces the Cabinet out, then the president has the authority to dissolve the legislature. Even in normal times, this would be an act of significant political destabilization. How the electorate would react to such shenanigans is unclear, and there aren't too many professional politicians who are willing to risk their careers without clear benefit.
To make matters worse, these are not normal times in Taiwan, electorally speaking.
The country is in the midst of a substantial set of reforms whose effect on the political landscape will be profound. In the next legislative election -- whether held next year as scheduled, or very soon if the Cabinet is toppled now -- the number of legislative seats will be reduced from 226 to 113. Also, the "single member, two vote" system to be adopted increases competition for these seats.
As with all reform, a host of unforeseen issues can arise. But there are two things that are obvious: Half of all lawmakers are going to be out on the street (or left doing the talkshow circuit), and the ability of smaller parties such as the Taiwan Solidarity Union, the People First Party, the New Party and the NPSU to curry electoral favor will be greatly diminished.
It isn't clear if the NPSU lawmakers calling for the Cabinet's dismissal realize that such an act would almost certainly mean their political demise. Perhaps we are witnessing an act of attempted political suicide -- who knows?
Since the NPSU is unlikely to get the support of the KMT at this time, perhaps it should be looking elsewhere. Perhaps it should ask the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to back its proposal -- after all, the group tells us it is "non-partisan" in its very name. And who else really has something to gain from a new legislature?
This proposal may sound absurd, but everything in Taiwanese politics is absurd at present. It could be very beneficial for the DPP to oust its own Cabinet, have the president dissolve the legislature and call a new legislative election under the new system.
Given the uncertainties involved, the pan-greens might even be able to win a majority of the seats. The DPP traditionally has been the largest party in the Legislative Yuan, and the near-even split of the current legislature means that, once the smaller parties are forced off the scene by sheer weight of numbers, the DPP may well come out on top.
That is the real reason you won't see Ma or Wang deciding to back the NPSU's proposal any time soon.
But it also makes one wonder why the DPP hasn't tried it yet. It isn't as if things can get much worse for the party. When your enemies are all around you and there is no clear escape, you only have two choices.
Pull out the white flag and surrender, or fix bayonets and attack.
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS