The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) put forward their no-confidence motion in Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) to much fanfare. The result, as expected, was a resounding victory for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which used its majority to reject the motion by 67 votes to 45, with nobody voting against the party line.
This has been a huge boost for the previously demoralized and fractious KMT; it has done wonders for party unity. Jiang himself has come out smiling. Had it not been for the motion, he would have found it difficult to extricate himself from the ongoing constitutional issue. Now, he has the chance to start anew and can look forward to a year in the job without having to worry about another motion.
The DPP have made a strategic error. Following constitutional amendments, the premier’s nomination no longer needs ratification by the legislature. While expedient, it does mean that the influential position does not require a public mandate: His power is invested in him entirely by presidential nomination. He is the moon to the president’s sun; any glow he emits is reflected light. When the president is strong, the premier he has entrusted with running the country looks strong. When the president has no faith in him, or is himself unpopular, the premier very quickly finds it difficult to do his job. Jiang’s problem of late was his political legitimacy.
The DPP’s offensive against President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has manifested itself against Jiang. The party has prevented him from getting to the podium on the legislature floor to deliver his annual report on six occasions. This, together with the no-confidence motion, has contributed to breaking the political stalemate, allowing the premier to win the legislature’s approval and regain his legitimacy to govern.
DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) said the boycotts of Jiang’s report will continue despite the motion’s failure, but while the reason for the boycott remains unchanged, its political significance is different. The premier’s political slate has now been wiped clean of the opposition’s original accusations. The legislature no longer feels that the premier must resign, and by unreasonably persisting in these boycotts, the opposition is giving the KMT a chance to hit back. Soon the marginal returns for the DPP will be far smaller than the costs.
The motion was also a tactical error. The DPP said that were it not for the party whip, many more KMT legislators would have voted in favor, reflecting public opinion. In this they are wrong. The KMT legislators voted against the motion entirely of their own free will, because had it passed, there would be a strong likelihood the legislature would be dissolved and they would face another election. This would have been political suicide.
The KMT has reason to be wary of a legislative election right now. KMT legislators know they would have to go through much money and shoe leather to campaign for re-election and could still lose their seats. A vote against the motion was a vote for two more years before an election.
While many KMT legislators are unhappy with how Ma and Jiang govern, they were never going to vote against the party line. Even Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) voted against the motion. Had he not, and the legislature had been dissolved, his treasured position as speaker would have gone too.
The threshold to recall the president appears high, but KMT legislators would be less invested in the results and would be far more likely to vote against the party line in a motion to recall the president than they were with this motion.
The general public has lost faith in Ma and Jiang. The opposition needed to respond, but it should have proceeded with caution and only when it was sure it had the right strategy. The failure of this motion has not only weakened the opposition’s hand, it has also boosted the governing party. It was not worth it.
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS