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.
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
China often describes itself as the natural leader of the global south: a power that respects sovereignty, rejects coercion and offers developing countries an alternative to Western pressure. For years, Venezuela was held up — implicitly and sometimes explicitly — as proof that this model worked. Today, Venezuela is exposing the limits of that claim. Beijing’s response to the latest crisis in Venezuela has been striking not only for its content, but for its tone. Chinese officials have abandoned their usual restrained diplomatic phrasing and adopted language that is unusually direct by Beijing’s standards. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the
RSS