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.
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
RSS