Written by Dr Chieh-chi Hsieh .
Image credit: 傅崐萁/Facebook.
Introduction
In this article, I argue that although the leading opposition party, Kuomintang (KMT), alongside the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), have been enjoying their upper hand influence in the Parliament, ultimately it would be the KMT that will suffer more substantial short-and-long term political backlash vis-à-vis the TPP. It is fair to say that the Legislative Yuan, Taiwan’s parliament body, has been displaying its very worst since the end of Martial Law in 1987. However, the reason for failing the expectations of Taiwan’s general public is different. To elaborate, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) often received criticism for adopting a more physical confrontation method in public demonstrations as well as in legislature meetings to raise public awareness and achieve their political goals when it was the leading opposition party (i.e. 1987-2000; 2008-2016). Yet, this is not the case as to why the current impasse in the legislature is raising substantial concerns in Taiwan. Instead, we are witnessing the political development in which confrontation between Taiwan and China is becoming more ‘internalised.’
The Principal and Agent Problem
The famous quote of Churchill states, ‘ No one pretends that democracy is the perfect or all-wise [and] it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time…’. This has often been used to depict the notion that ‘democracy is merely a lesser evil’ and is simply upheld due to the lack of alternative methods to govern. Without a doubt, one can argue that the current political fiasco in Taiwan’s legislature speaks volumes to this statement. For instance, after the amendments to the Legislative Yuan’s Power Act was put forward by the KMT-TPP coalition in May 2024, it led to the formation of the ‘bluebird movement (青鳥行動)’. Yet, the large-scale demonstration did not deter the KMT-TPP coalition from engaging in subsequent controversial actions. In fact, the ensuing reform bill put forward by the KMT-TPP majority was the Constitutional Court Procedure Act, which paralyses Taiwan’s Constitutional Court: the judicial apparatus that overthrew the Amendments to the Legislative Yuan’s Power Act. Furthermore, when civic groups across Taiwan first announced motions of recalling KMT legislators, the KMT-TPP coalition responded by proposing the self-serving Amendment to the Public Officials Election and Recall Act, which tightened the standards for recalling officials. In addition, KMT legislators have become reckless in their behaviours. Atrocious actions of KMT legislators include Hsu Chiao-Hsin giving the middle finger to DPP legislator Lee Kuen-Cheng during live television broadcast, as well as her antics when supporting the KMT’s motion to freeze half of the funding proposed (i.e. US 61.01 million dollars ) to continue work on a fleet of indigenous defence submarines for 2025.
The aforementioned political dynamics in Taiwan is a classic example of the so-called ‘principal and agent problem’. As agents (i.e. legislators) will pursue the maximisation of their self-interest rather than the collective interests of their principals (i.e. the people), principals gradually lose control of the agents once they delegate authority to the latter.
It seems like the KMT-TPP coalition is obtaining absolute success insofar as obliterating whoever and whatever is in their way. This is especially demonstrated in the case of the KMT; they are displaying absolute disregard for how their actions are stirring the resentment of Taiwan’s general public. A prime example can be seen when KMT legislator Chen Yu-jen bluntly verbally insulted cultural workers such as artists and film directors by referring to them as tramps that beg for financial support.
Seizing Control and Foreseeable Political Backlashes
Although I agree that democracy is not the perfect institutional arrangement for governance, it does possess mechanisms that allow sporadical adjustments and readjustments. Public demonstrations and nationwide petitions for recalling legislators that we are currently witnessing in Taiwan can be viewed as the general public’s (i.e. principals) attempt to regain its control over elected officials (i.e. agents). As I hold an optimistic view on solving the principal-agent problem in Taiwan, I underscore that the KMT will be the main recipient that suffers these political backless in this process.
The first foreseeable political backlash on the KMT would be facing the nationwide recall motions. On 3 March, the Central Election Commission confirmed that a total of 32 petitions to recall KMT legislators had successfully passed the initial phase review. This is considered a substantial success for Taiwan’s civil society not only because they were mobilised solely by local civic groups without the DPP’s active involvement but also because the timeframe of their successful submissions indicates that their petitions will apply to the requirement of the previous unamended Public Officials Election and Recall Act. On the contrary, the 12 recall motions put forward against DPP legislators suffered catastrophic failure because all of these cases showed irregularities in their petition documents collected, notably including forms signed by deceased individuals. These petitions have been given a 10-day timeframe to meet the threshold for signatures. If failed to be accomplished, any new petitions put forward to recall officials will entail the application of the tightened Election and Recall Act, ironically passed by the KMT themselves.
To make things worse for the KMT, whilst the party would be facing these recall motions head-on and potentially lose some seats in the Legislative Yuan, the TPP would suffer no actual and immediate impact in this process. The reason for this is the eight seats held by the TPP were gained through the party-list proportion representation system (PR) and not the single-member first-preference plurality method (FPP). In brief, members of the Parliament elected via the PR system are not associated with any constituency and voted by supporters who cast their ballots in support of political parties, whereas candidates of the FPP system are voted directly by supporters in a given constituency. Hence, TPP legislators are shielded from facing any recall elections and will maintain their eight seats in the Legislative Yuan until the next general election in 2028.
Finally, what would be more troublesome for the KMT is how cross-strait confrontation between Taiwan and China has been ‘internalised’ at the party’s cost. What I mean by this is that since Xi Jinping’s 2019 speech and the outburst of the COVID-19 pandemic, the tension between both countries has been at the state level. Thus, when China’s military started to launch warplane incursions around Taiwan in 2022, these actions constituted China as the ‘external threat’, which arguably allowed the DPP to mobilise supporters.
Yet, the various misconducts of the KMT-TPP in the Legislative Yuan are making them the ‘new internal threat’ to Taiwan. In addition to not respecting the due process of the law and the rules of procedures of Parliament and putting forward controversial amendments that will jeopardise the democratic political system of Taiwan, the KMT’s decision to freeze and cut the national defence budget all gave Taiwan’s general public the negative impression that the party is acting as a surrogate for China to not only create political instability in the country but also attempting to send unwanted signals to the US government that Taiwan is not committed to self-defence against China. As shown during President Chen Shui-Bian’s second term from March 2004- October 2005, in which US arms sales to Taiwan was put on hold, domestic instability does have a negative impact on Taiwan-US cooperation against China’s assertive foreign policy. With KMT caucus whip Fu Kun-Chi and his fellow KMT legislators brazenly visiting China, stating their actions as ‘ground-breaking’ for the peace and prosperity of both China and Taiwan, these actions have become the fuel for Taiwan’s general public and perpetuate them to recall these incompetent KMT legislators.
Conclusion
The current political instability in Taiwan is mainly the result of the misconduct of the KMT-TPP majority in the Legislative Yuan. Consequently, it seems like their actions have exposed the weakness of Taiwan’s democratic political system. However, observing the nationwide recall petitions put forward by self-motivated civil groups in Taiwan demonstrates the resilience of Taiwan’s citizens and their commitment to democracy and freedom. Hence, although it is too early to assess whether all 32 recall petitions will succeed in the second stage requirement, the general public’s attempt to regain control over their representatives in Parliament is in full motion. The KMT is expected to suffer significant political backlashes that might lead to them losing their majority in the parliament. In the long term, becoming the ‘new threat’ is expected to create obstacles for the party’s campaign for the upcoming local elections in 2026.
Chieh-chi Hsieh received his PhD from the Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick (UK). He also holds an MSc degree in International Political Economy from the Department of International Relations, London School of Economics and Political Science. You can follow him on Twitter@DrHsiehCC.
This article was published as part of a special issue on ‘Taiwan’s Budget Crisis’.