There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied.
Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party?
The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote.
It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated budget and has brought about a worsening of cross-strait relations.
The KMT has formed a strong opposition coalition with the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding a majority that claims to represent 60 percent of the vote and stands on the same side with the general public.
The KMT has tried to please the electorate by proposing a universal cash payout.
It advocates for frequent exchanges with China as “the two sides of the Strait are one family.”
It has pushed through several “reform” bills it claims are “beneficial” to the nation, and saved the public from a huge military budget, personnel costs and operating expenses for four branches of the government.
Notably, it has not done anything to cut the operating budget for the Legislative Yuan.
It also passed a bill to amend the Criminal Code to subject those found in contempt of the legislature to criminal proceedings in a bid to “alleviate the burden” of the Judicial Yuan, while rejecting all seven judicial nominees for the Constitutional Court.
It has pushed through amendments to the National Communications Commission Organization Act (國家通訊傳播委員會組織法), affecting the normal functioning of the commission.
Facing such a sound “supervision,” the premier has not behaved, it says.
Instead, he has asked for reconsiderations and constitutional interpretations of the bills passed by the legislature.
Enough is enough.
The premier apparently does not know his place, choosing to do things the hard way instead of just letting the legislature get its way.
What is it, then, that is stopping a strong opposition camp like the KMT and the TPP, which holds a majority in the legislature and has wide public support, from proposing a no-confidence vote?
The reality is that the opposition is well-aware that the next step after proposing a vote of no confidence would be to dissolve the Legislative Yuan.
After that, snap elections would have to be called.
From the perspective of the TPP, none of its candidates won constituency seats in the legislative elections last year.
Things could not get worse in a re-election. It would be considered a huge gain if it could grab one or two seats.
Regarding legislator-at-large seats, the party could definitely secure support from its die-hard fans, as TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) decried the “political persecution” of the party’s former chairman, Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), who is being detained for alleged corruption-related offenses.
A re-election would allow Huang to foster his charisma and authority in the post-Ko era, while also appealing to the party’s supporters to make political donations by pretending it is in desperate financial need.
Why would it not do so when it could kill two birds with one stone?
From the perspective of the KMT, as the DPP only has 40 percent public support, the number of seats it would hold after a re-election would drop from 51 to 45, or 40 percent of the total of 113 seats.
Meanwhile, the KMT would secure 58 seats, the TPP eight at-large seats, and two seats would be held by KMT-sympathetic independent candidates.
In other words, the KMT would hold a majority on its own. It would be invincible in the legislature.
A promising future is within easy reach. The leaders and politicians of the KMT and the TPP should be confident enough to propose a no-confidence vote, dismiss the legislature, call a re-election and witness the latest public opinion.
Let us turn a new page in history. How about it?
Chang Kuo-tsai is a retired National Hsinchu University of Education associate professor.
Translated by Fion Khan
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
Taiwan’s long-term care system has fallen into a structural paradox. Staffing shortages have led to a situation in which almost 20 percent of the about 110,000 beds in the care system are vacant, but new patient admissions remain closed. Although the government’s “Long-term Care 3.0” program has increased subsidies and sought to integrate medical and elderly care systems, strict staff-to-patient ratios, a narrow labor pipeline and rising inflation-driven costs have left many small to medium-sized care centers struggling. With nearly 20,000 beds forced to remain empty as a consequence, the issue is not isolated management failures, but a far more
RSS