It is a treacherous world out there, and it is quickly becoming even more dangerous. Taiwan needs to be prepared for very real external threats, and to be prepared to stand on its own.
The government’s ability to react to changes in the international situation has been hampered by political disunity at home. Legislators from the two main parties — the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) — are facing a wave of recall motions. The Central Election Commission on Monday confirmed that the petitions to recall 32 KMT lawmakers have passed the first-phase review, while the motions to recall 12 DPP legislators are pending due to irregularities, with the petitioners given 10 days to meet the signature threshold.
The KMT is calling foul and saying that these numbers reflect intervention from the DPP; it is aware of, but prefers to distract from, the very real public ire that has led to this situation. It is not just that the KMT is reluctant to address the reasons behind the recalls; it has been fully cognizant that these were coming, ever since it — together with the Taiwan People’s Party — embarked on its program of controversial amendments in February last year.
It is the bane of the media in Taiwan that so much time, effort and print real estate are taken up with cross-strait issues and the threat from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Politicians and journalists alike would love to concentrate on pressing issues and reforms that would benefit the lives of Taiwanese. The obsessive focus on the CCP’s ambitions and lies is wearying, but it is the CCP’s obsessive focus on annexing Taiwan that necessitates this.
Pretending an existential threat does not exist is no answer.
In his article published in today’s paper, KMT assistant director of international affairs Chance Hsu (須予謙) writes about how the recall motion is disruptive and politically motivated, and notes that the KMT would prefer to concentrate on social and economic reforms in the interests of Taiwan’s long-term stability and development. He also writes that the opposition should be allowed to execute its duty of providing checks and balances, as he says it is simply doing its job of providing oversight to the government’s budget.
These are perfectly reasonable propositions, except for two glaring omissions. First, working for a prosperous future means little if the nation’s future is in jeopardy. Second, these proposals were only made once the opposition had wrought havoc in the legislature, gutting government finances and depleting the defense budget, as well as hobbling mechanisms of checks and balances on the legislature’s own power, namely the Constitutional Court and the public’s right of recall.
The aim of the KMT’s project has, quite transparently, been the depletion of the administration’s ability to govern, and laying the foundations to prevent sufficient pushback from constitutional institutions or the recall motions that it knew would happen.
One needs to ask where the KMT’s idea for a NT$10,000 handout came from. It would certainly be welcome. It is just that it feels a bit too much like a sweetener offered to the electorate to make it better disposed to the KMT, despite the chaos it has brought upon the political process.
Now the KMT is considering pushing for a referendum to keep the death penalty — which it knows will be a win for it, given the overwhelming public support for capital punishment — and possibly to have the referendum held on the same day as the recall votes, in an obvious ploy to boost voter turnout.
Concentrating on social issues and reform is certainly important; what Taiwanese do not need is the dismantling, disruption and distraction. National security matters, and the wave of recalls did not come from nowhere.
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
RSS