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.
Chinese actor Alan Yu (于朦朧) died after allegedly falling from a building in Beijing on Sept. 11. The actor’s mysterious death was tightly censored on Chinese social media, with discussions and doubts about the incident quickly erased. Even Hong Kong artist Daniel Chan’s (陳曉東) post questioning the truth about the case was automatically deleted, sparking concern among overseas Chinese-speaking communities about the dark culture and severe censorship in China’s entertainment industry. Yu had been under house arrest for days, and forced to drink with the rich and powerful before he died, reports said. He lost his life in this vicious
In South Korea, the medical cosmetic industry is fiercely competitive and prices are low, attracting beauty enthusiasts from Taiwan. However, basic medical risks are often overlooked. While sharing a meal with friends recently, I heard one mention that his daughter would be going to South Korea for a cosmetic skincare procedure. I felt a twinge of unease at the time, but seeing as it was just a casual conversation among friends, I simply reminded him to prioritize safety. I never thought that, not long after, I would actually encounter a patient in my clinic with a similar situation. She had
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
RSS