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.
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.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS