Taiwan's unprecedented presidential recall vote yesterday failed to achieve the majority required to pass. Although the motion came to naught, it should serve as a lesson and reminder for President Chen Shui-bian (
Meanwhile, the pan-blue camp is stubbornly clinging to its opposition to Chen. Although the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) seems to be veering toward a more moderate stance, it continues to mull over the next step in seeking Chen's ouster. The People First Party (PFP) -- as hardline as ever -- intends to dissolve the Cabinet or launch another recall motion. A second recall motion, however, is doomed to fail like the first. The pan-blue camp could still seek to topple the Cabinet, but doing so would be like opening a Pandora's box.
Under the Constitution, the pan-blue camp can initiate a no-confidence vote against the premier. However, they face a strategic obstacle in moving against the recently appointed Su Tseng-chang (
In the unlikely event that a no-confidence vote passes, the president will likely respond by dissolving the legislature. With the implementation of the new constitutional amendments for single-member districts, many incumbent lawmakers would therefore run the risk of finding themselves out of a job. Moreover, the redrawing of electoral boundaries must be completed six months prior to an election. As this process has not yet been completed, holding snap elections could spark a political crisis, undermining the rule of law.
The new "single district, two vote" electoral system will work to the advantage of big parties like the KMT. As for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), it is still reeling from recent setbacks. Meanwhile, the PFP and the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) are likely to shrink further.
If the pan-blues were to successfully topple the Cabinet, Chen would have to nominate a new premier. If he appoints a DPP or an independent political heavyweight, the opposition could launch another attempt to bring down the government, and another year would be devoured by political infighting. On the other hand, if Chen were to nominate a pan-blue candidate, this could deepen divisions within the pan-blue camp. These scenarios spell out only more conflict and confusion.
While a simple majority is required for a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet to succeed, this option presents many problems. The consequences may be hard to predict but it is a guaranteed recipe for disaster. Once this takes place, it will be difficult to apportion blame. But one thing is certain, it will be the people who will pay the ultimate price.
The recall bid has highlighted that Chen's performance has not been up to par. He has paid a heavy price, and the opposition should now show restraint and discipline as it has made its point. It is time to call for an end to hostilities if Taiwan is to escape from this political quagmire. Ma's decision not to entertain further discussions on toppling the Cabinet is a step in the right direction. It is more important, however, that he holds true to his promises rather than dancing to the tune of the hawkish faction within his party or the waning PFP.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS