Legislators of the opposition parties, consisting of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), on Friday moved to initiate impeachment proceedings against President William Lai (賴清德). They accused Lai of undermining the nation’s constitutional order and democracy.
For anyone who has been paying attention to the actions of the KMT and the TPP in the legislature since they gained a combined majority in February last year, pushing through constitutionally dubious legislation, defunding the Control Yuan and ensuring that the Constitutional Court is unable to operate properly, such an accusation borders the absurd.
That they are basing this move on Lai’s support for Premier Cho Jung-tai’s (卓榮泰) refusal to countersign legislation that would effectively force the executive branch to break the law provides the opposition with an excuse, however implausible, for their transparently grandstanding initiative. The excuse should be sufficient for their supporters among the electorate, which is presumably part of their strategy.
As Taipei Times columnist Courtney Donovan Smith explains in “Taiwan’s alarming constitutional crisis turns hot” (Dec. 18, page 12) there are reasons to consider Cho’s refusal to countersign constitutionally questionable. Cho’s actions could be condemned were it not for the string of events created by the opposition forcing his hand. Smith’s articles in his Donovan’s Deep Dives column do a great job of explaining the complex circumstances that have led us to this point.
There are two important aspects to this farce — funny were it not so serious — that should be noted:
The first is that the institution that could normally be relied upon to sort out the mess would be the Constitutional Court. Unfortunately, the opposition parties have ensured that the court is unable to perform its constitutional role, and continue to do whatever they can to make sure this continues.
The second is that impeachment proceedings against Lai are a non-starter, since a successful impeachment would require approval by two-thirds of lawmakers, including support from Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers, which seems unlikely.
The obvious conclusion is that not only are they not looking for a solution to the problem, but that they have intentionally manufactured the problem. It is part of their strategy to cause political chaos and prevent the government from doing its job, regardless of what this means for the country.
In the light of all of this manufactured chaos, voters must ask themselves: What exactly are the KMT and the TPP trying to do, not only with this impeachment drive, but with the constitutional crisis they have systematically created, and which has led us to this unprecedented situation? What is their endgame? To what degree is this acceptable?
While there remains the possibility of a negotiated conclusion between the governing and opposition parties, or clarity and final decision from the Constitutional Court should the empty seats be filled early next year, this would only be handling the immediate crisis, and would not address the obvious flaws in Taiwan’s constitutional system that have allowed the opposition to bring us to this pass.
As Yeh Chieh-ting (葉介庭), adviser to the National Taiwan Normal University International Taiwan Studies Center, said in “Limits of Taiwan’s governance being tested” (Dec. 25, page 8), the Constitution is a “patchwork of contradicting legal ideals and political compromises” with fundamental contradictions that mean that “checks and balances between the legislative, executive and judicial branches... are shoddy at best” and that there are “no effective veto or veto override powers between the executive and legislative branches.”
As Yeh suggests, perhaps the long-term solution would be constitutional reform to create a more robust system, although this would necessarily have to stop short of a completely new constitution, which the KMT would balk at.
Unfortunately, the needed constitutional reform would require rational debate and skillful negotiations, one that is impossible to imagine in the fractious environment, and given the current crop of politicians. The heightening of tensions must be understood within the context of the post-mass recall enmity between the two sides, and the pugilistic approach signaled by KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), supplemented by KMT caucus whip Fu Kun-chi and TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), who has long harbored a visceral hatred for the DPP, do not bode well.
Taiwan needs statesmanship, not brinkmanship; it needs unity of vision, not fractious partisanship. Do not hold your breath.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS