Following intense physical conflict inside the Legislative Yuan and a protest joined by thousands outside the chamber, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) lawmakers on Dec. 20 passed three sets of controversial amendments.
This week, these legislators were poised to pass more controversial laws. It might feel exhausting to watch yet another episode in the incessant steam of bad news about global as well as domestic threats to democracy. Yet members of Taiwanese civil society must resist the temptation to mentally disengage from this chaos; instead, we should continue to demand that legislators do their job of deliberating the bills before voting on them.
Since the passage of these bills, many have argued that these laws are instruments of an opposition power grab, designed to protect the KMT and TPP lawmakers from being recalled or receiving the Constitutional Court’s unfavorable rulings, as well as to weaken their political rivals, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led central government, by draining its resources.
The KMT has countered these criticisms by stating that tighter requirements for recall petitions would prevent abuse and fraud, constitutional interpretations must meet stricter standards for procedural integrity, and allocating more resources for local governments is good for the public. On Thursday last week, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) hosted a banquet for his party’s lawmakers, celebrating their legislative success and “combat power,” ridiculing the DPP lawmakers as sore losers.
In Taiwan’s polarized political landscape, these debates are likely to remain exactly that — polarized. However, one issue that citizens must make explicit, political positions notwithstanding, is that democracy is far from simply counting votes. Real democracy must involve substantive discussion. However, these new amendments were not subject to any deliberation whatsoever, causing DPP Legislator Fan Yun (范雲) to lament that “the legislature has become Hong Kongized.”
Taiwan is not Hong Kong, and the impact of its political upheaval might extend beyond those seen in Hong Kong’s democratic decline. President William Lai (賴清德) or his premier can refuse to sign or promulgate these bills, and the Legislative Yuan can respond by casting a vote of no confidence to oust the premier. Such a stalemate would lead to a highly volatile political situation, causing further polarization and destruction of social solidarity. Frequently deemed a hotspot for the next major world war, if Taiwan undergoes serious political and social unrest, it certainly does not bode well for maintaining peace in the region.
What is equally worrisome is how these political challenges might affect the relationship between Taiwan and the US. Taiwan has been under increasing pressure to demonstrate its commitment to defending itself against China’s military aggression. This pressure is likely to grow even stronger once US president-elect Donald Trump takes office. Meanwhile, a segment of the Taiwanese public has expressed strong sentiments of “US skepticism,” supporting narratives such as “the US only wants to exploit Taiwan,” or “the US would definitely not send military support to assist Taiwan.”
With the new legal measures, the DPP government would be hard pressed to raise its national defense budget to the target of 5 percent of GDP. This could be interpreted by the US as Taiwan’s weakened resolve for self-defense, which would further strain the relationship between the two entities.
Indeed, some have speculated that the Beijing-friendly lawmakers have aimed to weaken Taiwan’s democracy and coerce Taiwan to accept China’s vision of world order. However, conspiracy theories do not help us find common ground. Instead, it is far more productive to scrutinize the policies themselves.
Several civic organizations and professional groups have expressed well-reasoned concerns about these new laws. More of us must take similar steps — sign a petition, write an op-ed or a letter to the editor, join a protest, or call the legislator representing your district.
Doing so would make it clear that policy considerations, not party affiliations, are the basis for the objections against these laws. It would signal to the KMT lawmakers that the people, not the DPP per se, want them to do better. This is the only way to de-escalate the dangerously contentious fight between the different branches of the government.
Taiwanese civil society must demand that opposition lawmakers — regardless of their majority — fulfill their duty to deliberate. They must reopen the dialogues that were bypassed in the Legislative Yuan last week.
Lo Ming-cheng is a professor of sociology at the University of California-Davis, whose research addresses civil society, political cultures and medical sociology.
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Victory in conflict requires mastery of two “balances”: First, the balance of power, and second, the balance of error, or making sure that you do not make the most mistakes, thus helping your enemy’s victory. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has made a decisive and potentially fatal error by making an enemy of the Jewish Nation, centered today in the State of Israel but historically one of the great civilizations extending back at least 3,000 years. Mind you, no Israeli leader has ever publicly declared that “China is our enemy,” but on October 28, 2025, self-described Chinese People’s Armed Police (PAP) propaganda
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS