The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) are colluding in the legislature, creating a reality resembling a train racing down the tracks at full speed, with the passengers bound and gagged as ransomed hostages.
The opposition parties appear intent on upsetting the total operations of the government, demanding that everything from personnel affairs to budgeting go through them first.
They will not accept any other proposals: It is their way or nothing. They want to keep barreling forward, and they are not going to slam on the brakes anytime soon.
The people in the engine room might fear that suddenly hitting the brakes would cause the train to derail. Maybe they forgot there is a kill switch right next to them, but they dare not use it. Thus, their response is to hope that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) minority in the legislature could use rational communication to implore those at the helm to respect the “rules of the game,” “put safety first” and “consider the concerns of the majority.”
The problem with such responses is that the bad actors who have so easily stormed the train conductor’s cabin have revealed their shamelessness. They believe that “good things will happen only so long as all things are chaotic.”
Consequently, when moral and ethical persuasion fall upon deaf ears and indifference; when benevolence and conciliation run abreast of increasing aggravation and a ravenous desire for power; when idealistic dialogue runs up against brutal raw despotism; when there is no rationalism to clean up the mess; and when forbearance is seen as a weakness and becomes sustenance for wreaking havoc, the KMT and TPP, in their polarized confrontation, become a force that might determine the demise or survival of Taiwan’s democracy.
The opposition parties need to be reckoned with directly if Taiwanese want democracy to survive. People cannot shirk away, as it is only a matter of time. Without a direct confrontation, the public’s will could become the final arbiter in judging who is right or wrong in this situation. What other means do people have?
Viewing the relationship between the executive branch and the opposition-ruled legislature as a magnified version of the relationship between county and municipal governments, how could President William Lai (賴清德) not be a moving and inspiring figure as he was as former Tainan mayor? It was then that he confronted former Tainan city council speaker Lee Chuan-chiao (李全教), convicted of vote-buying, by refusing to allow corruption to ruin the local government’s integrity by standing up to city “audits” and “inquiries.”
What an excellent example Lai has set. Even after moving from the role of mayor to president, he should have no reason not to expand his integrity and anti-corruption efforts, to take a stand against the legislature’s unbridled despotism.
As for copying Kaohsiung residents — who after finally having enough of his antics, recalled their then-mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜), now the legislative speaker — recalling the opposition legislators who are acting against the public good could spread far and wide into a nationwide democratic movement. Who is to say it could not happen?
Most importantly is whether the executive branch misinterprets the saying of “playing host without creating a scene” as ignoring bad guests causing a stir around them. If the DPP adopts strict neutrality while civic groups are in the middle of running recall motions without getting all hands on deck and providing ample financial resources to those efforts, and instead watches from the sidelines with arms folded, ostensibly to avoid dirtying their hands from fighting corruption or perhaps to avoid looking inelegant while doing so, then such an image of virtuous inaction would make the DPP appear unserious in the legislature. That might end up being their just deserts.
Chang Kuo-tsai is a retired National Hsinchu University of Education associate professor.
Translated by Tim Smith
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
RSS