Given the huge differences in legislative representation between the governing and opposition parties, it was no surprise that Premier Sean Chen (陳冲) survived the vote of no confidence. However, that does not mean that the crisis is over for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) or that President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) problems are over.
The reason for the motion of no confidence was the opposition parties’ displeasure with the Cabinet’s decision to go ahead with the second stage of electricity and fuel price increases in December. Having lost confidence in the Cabinet’s ability to save the economy, the opposition wanted Chen to be replaced. Although the KMT put the electricity price increase on hold before the vote, that was not enough to assuage the opposition and dissuade them from going ahead as planned.
At first look, the attempt to oust Chen may have failed, but the big loser is the KMT.
The opposition took public complaints over the government’s economic measures to heart and aired the anger of the vast swathes of society that have hit on hard times due to economic pressures. Although KMT legislators were forced by the party whip to vote against the motion, many of them have expressed dissatisfaction with the Cabinet. Even Wang Chien-shien, the outspoken, deep-blue president of the Control Yuan, has said the attempt to oust Chen was “in line with public opinion.”
The motion of no confidence created a problem for Ma. Although international factors are an important part of the reason for Taiwan’s currently weak economy, the real reasons for the public discontent — the fuel and electricity price increases, the capital gains tax on securities transactions and the policy to register real land values — are in fact Ma’s policies, which the various ministers implement on his orders. The Cabinet has been left to handle the fallout.
However, the Cabinet spent a long time discussing the most pressing issues — inflation, unemployment and lagging exports — before presenting an unhurried plan to boost economic momentum. This follows South Korea’s plan to revive its economy by cutting taxes by US$5 billion and Japan’s monetary easing plan. By comparison, Taiwan looks like a wounded man hemorrhaging blood, whose doctors have put him on a drip instead of trying to quickly sew up the wound. We are left dumbfounded.
Ma understands that rescuing the economy is the government’s most urgent task, but the Cabinet is not doing enough to resolve the economic crisis, and this has put Ma under pressure. When the opposition parties beat him to the punch by proposing the motion of no confidence, they made it difficult for Ma to take action. The Cabinet reshuffle before the vote seemed like a response to the opposition’s demands or maybe even fear of opposition pressure. To avoid this impression, Ma was forced to first reshuffle the national security agencies, with the result that he was criticized for completely missing the point, playing the wrong card at the wrong table.
The outcome of the vote still leaves Ma with a problem. When Chen sailed through the vote of no confidence, he gained constitutional legitimacy. A rash Cabinet reshuffle now, while being the correct thing to do politically, would draw criticism based on constitutional concerns. If Ma allows the Cabinet to remain in place after Chen and his team have shown that their policies are useless and not seen as credible in the eyes of the public, both Ma and the KMT will suffer and have to pay a political price. Even a partial reshuffle that includes one or more of the officials in charge of economic policy — the ministers of economy and finance and the chairman of the Council of Economic Planning and Development — would be a slap in the face for Ma, since such changes would bring his authority and ability to maintain control of the overall situation into doubt.
To reshuffle or not to reshuffle, that remains the question even after the vote of no confidence.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath