The public debate surrounding the impeachment campaign against President William Lai (賴清德) has been framed as a clash of political wills: a defiant president versus an aggrieved legislature. That framing is not only misleading — it conceals a deliberate inversion of constitutional logic being pursued by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP).
What is unfolding is not simply political theater, but a calculated effort to turn the Constitution’s safeguards on their head, while pretending to defend them.
Using their combined majority in the Legislative Yuan, the KMT and the TPP pushed through revisions to the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法) that would dramatically increase the central government’s financial obligations. Under existing constitutional and legal constraints, implementing this framework would force the government to borrow beyond permissible limits.
Borrowing limits exist to prevent reckless fiscal behavior and to protect long-term state stability. A law that compels unconstitutional borrowing is itself constitutionally defective.
This is why the Executive Yuan refused to countersign the measure. Countersignature is not ceremonial. It is a constitutional safeguard. By countersigning, the executive certifies that a policy is lawful, executable and constitutionally sound. Refusing to countersign a measure that would require unconstitutional borrowing is not obstruction; it is the system functioning as designed.
The matter should have returned to legislative revision. Instead, the KMT and the TPP — led vocally by TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) — accused Lai of “breaking the Constitution” by refusing to countersign a measure that would itself violate constitutional borrowing limits. The logic was flipped: The act of preventing a constitutional breach was reframed as the breach itself.
This inversion is the core political strategy.
By collapsing a complex chain of responsibility into a simple slogan — “the legislature passed a law, the president refused to sign” — the KMT and the TPP recast executive restraint as authoritarianism. Cause becomes effect. Prevention becomes defiance. The original constitutional problem disappears from view.
Those advancing this maneuver know better. Budgetary mechanics and countersignature authority are not obscure matters to veteran legislators. Huang, in particular, is well aware that impeachment was designed for clear, egregious abuses of power, not policy disputes manufactured by forcing the Executive Yuan into an unconstitutional corner.
The impeachment campaign proceeds, because the real objective is reputational damage.
Even a doomed impeachment serves a political purpose: It plants the impression that “so many people want the president removed, so he must be a bad president.” The damage is inflicted at the level of perception, not law.
Theater ends when the curtain falls. This campaign seeks to normalize the idea that constitutional safeguards are suspect, that refusing to certify illegality is tyranny, and that executive restraint itself constitutes constitutional misconduct.
If this logic is allowed to stand, Taiwan’s checks and balances would be quietly hollowed out. A future legislature would learn that it can force the Executive Yuan into an impossible choice: Contravene the Constitution or be accused of doing so. Either way, the Executive Yuan loses.
Democracies rarely fail because rules are openly broken. They weaken when rules are deliberately misrepresented, inverted and abused — until citizens can no longer tell which institutions are protecting them and which are manipulating them.
Taiwanese should not fall into this trap. Whether you voted for him or not, Lai is still the president, and impeachment is the most serious step a democracy can take against its own leader. Before forming a view based on slogans or headline numbers, Taiwanese should pause and ask themselves a basic question: Do I actually understand what the president is being accused of, and why? Or am I being asked to condemn him simply for refusing to go along with something that could not be responsibly carried out?
Every citizen owes it to themselves — and to Taiwan — to look past the noise and understand the issue before taking sides.
John Cheng is a retired businessman from Hong Kong now living in Taiwan.
The image was oddly quiet. No speeches, no flags, no dramatic announcements — just a Chinese cargo ship cutting through arctic ice and arriving in Britain in October. The Istanbul Bridge completed a journey that once existed only in theory, shaving weeks off traditional shipping routes. On paper, it was a story about efficiency. In strategic terms, it was about timing. Much like politics, arriving early matters. Especially when the route, the rules and the traffic are still undefined. For years, global politics has trained us to watch the loud moments: warships in the Taiwan Strait, sanctions announced at news conferences, leaders trading
The saga of Sarah Dzafce, the disgraced former Miss Finland, is far more significant than a mere beauty pageant controversy. It serves as a potent and painful contemporary lesson in global cultural ethics and the absolute necessity of racial respect. Her public career was instantly pulverized not by a lapse in judgement, but by a deliberate act of racial hostility, the flames of which swiftly encircled the globe. The offensive action was simple, yet profoundly provocative: a 15-second video in which Dzafce performed the infamous “slanted eyes” gesture — a crude, historically loaded caricature of East Asian features used in Western
Is a new foreign partner for Taiwan emerging in the Middle East? Last week, Taiwanese media reported that Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Francois Wu (吳志中) secretly visited Israel, a country with whom Taiwan has long shared unofficial relations but which has approached those relations cautiously. In the wake of China’s implicit but clear support for Hamas and Iran in the wake of the October 2023 assault on Israel, Jerusalem’s calculus may be changing. Both small countries facing literal existential threats, Israel and Taiwan have much to gain from closer ties. In his recent op-ed for the Washington Post, President William
A stabbing attack inside and near two busy Taipei MRT stations on Friday evening shocked the nation and made headlines in many foreign and local news media, as such indiscriminate attacks are rare in Taiwan. Four people died, including the 27-year-old suspect, and 11 people sustained injuries. At Taipei Main Station, the suspect threw smoke grenades near two exits and fatally stabbed one person who tried to stop him. He later made his way to Eslite Spectrum Nanxi department store near Zhongshan MRT Station, where he threw more smoke grenades and fatally stabbed a person on a scooter by the roadside.
RSS