A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed.
Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way.
Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has put the names of 32 KMT and 12 Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers at risk of facing recall votes. No Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) lawmakers are subject to recall, as all eight are legislators-at-large, not elected to any constituency.
It was public anger against the disruptive and potentially dangerous actions of lawmakers in the previous legislative session that has led to this juncture. The anger is mainly directed at the opposition, while the motions against the DPP lawmakers were in retaliation.
Chu and the KMT have been trying to distract from the chaotic proceedings of the previous session, during which they passed controversial and — many would consider — unconstitutional amendments by emphasizing their more reasonable proposals this session. Could the idea to “bring down the Cabinet” have been another attempt at distraction from the recall proceedings? If so, it would have failed dramatically and likely had the opposite of the intended result.
According to Article 3 of the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China (中華民國憲法增修條文), a vote of no confidence in the premier can be initiated by a petition of at least one-third of legislators. Should more than half vote to pass the no-confidence motion, the premier would have to offer his resignation within 10 days.
However, the president would have the option to dissolve the legislature, with elections for a new set of lawmakers required within 60 days.
Given the reason for the mass recall movement, it is unlikely that the KMT would do too well in new legislative elections. The same big names facing recalls now, including KMT caucus leader Fu Kun-chi (傅崐萁) and Deputy Legislative Speaker Johnny Chiang (江啟臣), are as likely to fall in new votes as they would be in a recall.
Moreover, a successful no-confidence vote would require the support of the TPP.
TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) would be profoundly unwise to allow his party go from zero exposure in the recall movement to potentially zero seats following new legislative elections.
Had there indeed been any discussion within the KMT to push for a no-confidence vote, it would have been quickly rejected for the absurd idea that it is.
None of this does anything to reduce the panic among the KMT ranks about the mass recall. Indeed, the plunging morale has led to calls for Chu to step down as chairman. Among the names mooted as viable replacements are Fu, Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) and Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜).
Chu has had limited success in his role; he does need to go, but a new face would do little to assuage the public anger at what happened in the previous legislative session. Lu might be an effective chairperson, far more than Han, but if the public has issues with the KMT now, it is unlikely that it would fare any better with Fu in the driving seat.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS