By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.”
I sincerely hope he goes through with it.
The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then this is his moment. He has the numbers. He has the platform. So let him.
Under the Constitution, if a no-confidence vote succeeds, the president has the right to dissolve the legislature and call for a snap election. In today’s political climate, a fresh election would likely reverse the KMT-led majority.
So, if this is not just political theater — then great. Let the public decide whether they want a legislature that spends its time doing Beijing’s bidding, amplifying its propaganda and putting national security at risk — or one that is focused on strengthening the economy, improving people’s lives, and safeguarding our democracy and way of life.
The question is: Would Chiang really follow through? Or would he, as many suspect, back off?
If he backs off, it raises uncomfortable questions about his judgement, his intent and his fitness for public office. Is he simply impulsive? Was this all an emotional outburst, a reckless reaction made without thinking through the consequences? Should someone this reactive really be the mayor of Taiwan’s capital? If his words carry no weight, he has no business holding the microphone.
If this was not impulse, but calculation — if he knew from the start that his proposal would be taken up — there is something more disturbing: a cynical political distraction. A deliberate attempt to shift the public’s attention away from a serious investigation into wrongdoing by members of his own party and redirect scrutiny onto the central government.
In that scenario, the motive becomes clear: First, discredit the investigation before it reaches a conclusion, then characterize the KMT as victims; next, inflate the political cost of continuing the probe, hoping the DPP would hesitate; and finally, saturate the airwaves with the words “persecution” and “dictatorship” until truth becomes noise.
However, there is a problem with that strategy: It is paper-thin.
The KMT has offered no evidence to support their cries of persecution, just slogans, and not a single credible argument.
This is not just bad politics, it is dangerous, particularly at a time when Taiwan is facing increasing pressure from across the Taiwan Strait. In moments of external tension, internal cohesion matters. That does not mean silencing dissent. It means the nation raises the standard of political conduct, especially for those in power or aspiring to it. To recklessly accuse your democratic government of dictatorship without evidence is not opposition — it is sabotage.
If Chiang believes in what he is saying, he should proceed with the no-confidence motion. However, if he backs down, after all his threats, then Taiwan has the right to demand that he resign.
A mayor who uses his office to stoke political chaos is not defending democracy — he is eroding it. A mayor who weaponizes accusations of persecution without proof is not a guardian of freedom — he is a participant in a misinformation campaign. A mayor who pretends to wield a constitutional hammer, but walks away when asked to swing it? That is not a leader. That is a performer who just forgot his lines.
Taiwan does not need political games that insult the intelligence of the public. What the nation needs is accountability — across party lines. If KMT members are found to have forged signatures in recall campaigns, they should face consequences. If DPP officials misuse the law to target the opposition, they should, too. That is not blue or green. That is democratic integrity.
This is not about party rivalry anymore. It is about whether we can still tell the difference between governance and distraction, between justice and theater.
So go ahead, Mayor Chiang. File your motion. Topple the Cabinet. Trigger an election. You might give the people a chance to clean up the mess you helped create.
If not — if all this is just noise — then you owe the public one thing: your resignation.
John Cheng is a retired businessman from Hong Kong residing in Taiwan.
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 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
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
RSS