Ever since undermining Taiwan's democracy became the "in" thing, members of opposition parties have been saying that it is time to topple the Cabinet.
The Non-Partisan Solidarity Union (NPSU) -- which in actuality is none of those things -- has even called on the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to formally endorse a campaign to oust the Cabinet.
KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
If the Legislative Yuan forces the Cabinet out, then the president has the authority to dissolve the legislature. Even in normal times, this would be an act of significant political destabilization. How the electorate would react to such shenanigans is unclear, and there aren't too many professional politicians who are willing to risk their careers without clear benefit.
To make matters worse, these are not normal times in Taiwan, electorally speaking.
The country is in the midst of a substantial set of reforms whose effect on the political landscape will be profound. In the next legislative election -- whether held next year as scheduled, or very soon if the Cabinet is toppled now -- the number of legislative seats will be reduced from 226 to 113. Also, the "single member, two vote" system to be adopted increases competition for these seats.
As with all reform, a host of unforeseen issues can arise. But there are two things that are obvious: Half of all lawmakers are going to be out on the street (or left doing the talkshow circuit), and the ability of smaller parties such as the Taiwan Solidarity Union, the People First Party, the New Party and the NPSU to curry electoral favor will be greatly diminished.
It isn't clear if the NPSU lawmakers calling for the Cabinet's dismissal realize that such an act would almost certainly mean their political demise. Perhaps we are witnessing an act of attempted political suicide -- who knows?
Since the NPSU is unlikely to get the support of the KMT at this time, perhaps it should be looking elsewhere. Perhaps it should ask the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to back its proposal -- after all, the group tells us it is "non-partisan" in its very name. And who else really has something to gain from a new legislature?
This proposal may sound absurd, but everything in Taiwanese politics is absurd at present. It could be very beneficial for the DPP to oust its own Cabinet, have the president dissolve the legislature and call a new legislative election under the new system.
Given the uncertainties involved, the pan-greens might even be able to win a majority of the seats. The DPP traditionally has been the largest party in the Legislative Yuan, and the near-even split of the current legislature means that, once the smaller parties are forced off the scene by sheer weight of numbers, the DPP may well come out on top.
That is the real reason you won't see Ma or Wang deciding to back the NPSU's proposal any time soon.
But it also makes one wonder why the DPP hasn't tried it yet. It isn't as if things can get much worse for the party. When your enemies are all around you and there is no clear escape, you only have two choices.
Pull out the white flag and surrender, or fix bayonets and attack.
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