The Presidential Office yesterday announced that President William Lai (賴清德) would today be embarking on a series of stops across the country to engage with members of the public about 10 issues. He would be doing so to promote unity among Taiwanese, the governing and opposition parties, and the nation, the Presidential Office said.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯) and Lo Chih-chiang (羅智強) were quick to respond to the announcement; the former scoffing at Lai’s call for national unity, accusing him of being the main source of division, the latter saying that Lai’s version of unity “begins with fighting with the opposition.”
The Central Election Commission had announced on Friday that the recall vote for 24 KMT legislators would be held on July 26. Hsu and Lo are among the 24, so it is not surprising that they were the ones to respond so quickly to the announcement of Lai’s tour.
Anyone unaware of how KMT legislators had disported themselves in the legislature over the past 16 months might feel some empathy for them. Suffice to say that it has precisely been their disruptive and divisive approach that caused civil society to initiate a mass recall drive. It speaks volumes that all the genuine — not involving partisan fraud — recall motions have been against KMT legislators, and not against the governing Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
The KMT is accusing Lai of being dictatorial, and wants him to intervene and stop the civil actions against its legislators, in the interest of “unity.”
If Lai stepped in and used his power to halt the civil actions, one could only imagine that the KMT would accuse him of being a dictator and quashing democracy.
On Wednesday last week, Lai had arranged a national security briefing, to which he had invited opposition leaders, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌). The invitation had originally been extended during a presidential address on May 20, the anniversary of Lai’s inauguration.
Chu and Huang had expressed interest at the time, but in the days approaching the briefing, they declined to attend, as the format was not to their liking. The decision not to go was not based on the national interest, nor was it a demonstration of leadership. In Huang’s case, it was an expression of his own brand of petulant politics. In Chu’s, it was a strategic misstep.
The TPP does not stand to lose any legislators in this recall movement, as all its current crop are legislators-at-large. However, it would lose considerable influence in the legislature if KMT numbers are reduced.
The KMT could be seriously impacted by the results. Attendance at the national security briefing would have been good optics had Chu wanted to pander to the swing voters. He has chosen to pander instead to his deep-blue base, who revel in his opposition for opposition’s sake.
Support for the central government’s agenda on national security might have reduced some of the voter anger and might have helped the KMT get through the recalls relatively unscathed. The optics of refusal to attend are at least open to a more cynical interpretation, one that already exists in the minds of many Taiwanese: that Chu is more concerned with promoting the agenda of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) than Taiwan’s national interest. Somebody ought to tell him that the CCP is very content with the chaos and disunity he is sowing, but is not concerned about whether the recalls sink the KMT.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
RSS