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.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS