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.
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS