The Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) was born of discontent. Many young voters, exhausted by the endless blue-green gridlock, turned to this so-called “third force” in hopes of pragmatic politics, clean governance and a focus on everyday struggles — such as housing, wages and affordability. In 2020 and again last year, they placed their trust in the TPP out of a desperate belief that something different had to be better.
However, since early last year, what once seemed like fresh air has been revealed to be a staleness that is all too familiar.
The TPP has found itself holding the balance of power in the Legislative Yuan. However, rather than using that leverage to mediate between parties or advance practical reforms, the TPP aligned itself entirely with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) — a party widely regarded as Beijing’s favored proxy. Together, the TPP and KMT have rammed through controversial legislative reforms, expanded legislative oversight powers to undermine the executive branch and blocked the Democratic Progressive Party government on critical national issues ranging from defense to energy.
This is not principled centrism. It is sabotage wrapped in technocratic packaging, leaving many young voters who once identified with the TPP disillusioned and betrayed.
Democracy requires negotiation and compromise. No party deserves a blank check. What has unfolded since February last year is not power-sharing — it is power-hijacking: A coordinated effort by the KMT and the TPP to paralyze the elected government, erode institutional checks and balances, and impose unpopular legislation without public consent.
That is not just cynical. It is corrosive.
What makes it worse is the nature of the TPP’s power. Of its eight legislators, all are at-large party list appointees. They were not elected by any district. They cannot be recalled. They face no local accountability. They operate without the check of constituency pressure, yet hold the swing votes that now define Taiwan’s legislative outcomes.
Voters who feel betrayed by the TPP’s post-election alliance with the KMT are left powerless.
Former TPP chairman and Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), once the party’s figurehead of reform, is now facing corruption charges tied to his mayorship. However, it is his successor, Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), who is proving to be far more dangerous. Once a leader of the Sunflower movement, Huang has turned into something unrecognizable: a hardliner with little patience for dissent and even less regard for democratic norms.
His role in the recent artificial intelligence tape scandal — where manipulated audio was used to damage political opponents — should have triggered soul-searching. Instead, Huang stonewalled. He provided no real apology or acknowledgment of ethical boundaries crossed. He just delivered more legal threats, media scorn and finger-pointing.
Huang has championed the KMT-TPP “reforms” rammed through the legislature in May last year — which were denounced by legal academics and civic groups as unconstitutional. When citizens poured into Ketagalan Boulevard in protest, Huang dismissed them as misled or manipulated. Civic outrage was treated not as democratic expression, but as political noise.
His tone is increasingly authoritarian — weaponizing “legislative supremacy,” ridiculing journalists, silencing academics and sidelining watchdog groups. It is beginning to mirror the exact autocratic tendencies Taiwan has always stood against.
For those who backed the TPP in the name of party rotation, think again. Yes, alternation of power is a democratic feature — but it is not democracy’s purpose. Elevating party rotation as a virtue in itself is simplistic, even reckless. In any system, blind rotation invites instability. In Taiwan, under the looming threat of China, it can invite disaster. When a shift in domestic politics begins to undermine national security, the pursuit of change for its own sake becomes not just misguided, but dangerous.
The next time a party asks for your vote in the name of being different, ask what that really means, because “different” is not always better. In the TPP’s case, it is turning out to be more cynical, manipulative and aligned with everything Taiwan cannot afford to become.
There is a way for voters — especially those who feel betrayed by the TPP — to make their voice heard. On July 26, Taiwan is to hold recall voting targeting KMT legislators. This is no ordinary election. It is an opportunity for disillusioned TPP supporters to act. You cannot recall TPP legislators directly, but you can recall their enablers.
John Cheng is a retired businessman from Hong Kong now living in Taiwan.
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS