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.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS