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.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic