Taiwan’s political arena has long been a stage for high-stakes confrontations, but recent events have exposed new cracks in its democratic framework. As rival parties clash over competing visions for the nation’s future, the legislative process has increasingly become a battlefield where governance and partisanship collide, leaving citizens questioning whether their interests are being heard amid the noise.
The Legislative Yuan on Dec. 20 passed three controversial bills: the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法), the Public Officials Election and Recall Act (公職人員選舉罷免法), and the Constitutional Court Procedure Act (憲法訴訟法).
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) finds itself in a weaker position in the newly formed Legislative Yuan. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), having secured 52 seats in the latest election, has allied with the Taiwan People’s Party under the coordination of KMT caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁), effectively taking control of the legislature.
With this majority, the KMT has swiftly advanced a series of bills, intensifying the political standoff. The tensions in the Legislative Yuan feel even more intense than during former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) administration.
The KMT has shown little regard for the backlash it faced in May when the “Bluebird movement” protested its disregard for the legislative process. Instead of reflecting on this opposition, the KMT has doubled down on its hardline tactics against the DPP. For example, in handling the three bills, the KMT dismissed the “Bluebird movement” as nothing more than a DPP echo chamber. This suggests the party sees little risk in continuing its aggressive approach.
Recently, the KMT even asked Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) to delay sending the allocation and election bills to the Executive Yuan. This is a move that undermines the neutrality of his role and attempts to block the DPP’s administrative actions.
Faced with such a tough political environment, the DPP has found itself on shaky ground. Taking the government revenue allocation act as an example, the DPP has struggled to reconcile its past positions — such as its earlier support for reforms to the law — with its current stance. The lack of a clear and convincing explanation has left many wondering which direction the party is really heading in.
When it comes to actions, the DPP has often leaned on portraying itself as a victim, while labeling its opponents as “Chinese Communist Party collaborators.” This approach might rally its core supporters in the short term, but it does little to win over floating voters. Over time, even loyal backers might start asking: “What exactly are we fighting for?”
The number of protesters in the “Bluebird movement” has significantly decreased compared with May last year. If the conflicts between the legislative and executive branches persist, the public might increasingly question whether President Williams Lai’s (賴清德) statement of achieving “greater democracy to solve democratic problems” is anything more than a slogan.
The rushed passage of the allocation bill, with little debate, only fueled perceptions that this was a political power play rather than genuine policy reform.
Besides the administrative actions that have already been widely discussed, the DPP could counter by exploiting divisions within the KMT. For instance, Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chi-mai (陳其邁) recently asked KMT Legislator Ko Chih-en (柯志恩), a potential mayoral candidate, why Kaohsiung received the lowest budget share. Ko’s candid reply was: “Fu Kun-chi is beyond my control.” This revealed internal doubts about Fu’s leadership style, which does not necessarily align with the interests of all KMT lawmakers. These internal cracks might give the DPP an opening to counter the KMT’s strong-arm tactics.
While Taiwan’s domestic politics seldom capture global attention, political instability here is not something the international community wants to see, given Taiwan’s importance to regional security. The ruling and opposition parties need to recognize that a stable political environment is essential to Taiwan’s global standing.
Taiwanese expect their leaders to provide clear direction in chaotic times. It is not just a responsibility; it is crucial for building trust at home and abroad.
Yang Chun-huei is a senior journalist specializing in Taiwan’s politics and Pacific regional affairs.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS