Partisan Tensions and Internal Dissatisfaction: President Lai in Difficult Position
United Daily News Editorial, January 9, 2025
The ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has faced repeated setbacks in the Legislative Yuan, with party whip Legislator Ker Chien-Ming calling for anti-democratic measures such as dissolving the Legislative Yuan, disbanding the opposition Kuomintang (KMT), and initiating recalls against Speaker Han Kuo-Yu and other KMT lawmakers. This has fueled calls for large-scale retaliatory recalls. Meanwhile, the Executive Yuan has shown no signs of compromise, resorting to hardline tactics such as reconsideration motions and constitutional interpretations to delay proceedings. Under these circumstances, politics is set to stall, devolving into a chaotic battle sure to squander public funds and erode public trust. In the face of an impending political dark age, does President Lai have no strategy to prevent a head-on collision?
From blocking the nomination of Liu Ching-Yi as grand justice onward, Legislator Ker's series of aggressive actions have been interpreted as a show of defiance against President Lai, reflecting dissatisfaction from different factions within the DPP. Another perspective within the green camp suggests that Legislator Ker's declaration of war against the opposition was tacitly approved or even directed by President Lai, stemming from President Lai’s frustration over his inability to control the broader political landscape. A third viewpoint posits that the internal discord within the DPP arises from individuals acting based on their own interests, with no significant conflicts or conspiracies between them.
The actual situation appears to be a combination of the three phenomena described above. First, DPP factions, dissatisfied with President Lai’s desire for control, used the pretext of "legislative autonomy" to block Liu’s nomination as a form of protest. Second, President Lai’s push for countermeasures and recalls is not without basis—his repeated references to "greater democracy" hint at potential strategies involving referendums, recalls, and mass mobilization. Third, the claim that the Office of the President, Executive Yuan, and DPP caucus of the Legislative Yuan are acting "based on their own positions" seems to be a narrative crafted to maintain appearances. In reality, the government and party leadership may still lack a coherent plan, with the "individual positions" explanation serving as a convenient way to buy time.
The DPP’s stance seemed to shift yesterday subtly. DPP Secretary-General Lin Yu-chang stated that the Office of the President, Executive Yuan, and the party caucus had never discussed large-scale recall campaigns. He added that with President Lai in office for less than a year, pursuing a "total recall" would inevitably lead to "total confrontation," jeopardizing future governance. President Lai himself struck a more ambiguous tone, expressing an understanding of the caucus’s sentiments and suggesting that other constitutional processes could still be pursued. However, he simultaneously emphasized that retreat was absolutely not an option.
The statements from Secretary-General Lin and Chairman Lai seem to suggest that the ruling party does not intend to push ahead with an uncompromising strategy, particularly avoiding Legislator Ker’s so-called "large-scale recall" campaigns. Instead, they appear willing to leave such actions to civil groups, allowing grassroots movements to take the lead. This approach is evidently more pragmatic. Prolonged confrontation between the ruling and opposition parties would only lead to gridlock, with opposition-initiated bills repeatedly frozen or shelved by the ruling party, rendering the Legislative Yuan’s efforts futile. Such a situation would inevitably deepen public discontent.
If the DPP were to aggressively pursue large-scale recalls, it would not only contradict the principle of voter-driven recall but also risk a significant backlash. Considering that the current legislative term has not yet reached its first anniversary, calls for recalls from the DPP could become an international laughingstock, further undermining its credibility.
If a "wave of large-scale recalls" were to be launched, then it would ignite widespread conflict and leave the Lai administration fractured and unable to accomplish anything substantial. Critical tasks such as passing the government’s general budget, ensuring the proper functioning of the Legislative Yuan, filling judicial vacancies, and clarifying whether financial allocation laws should follow new or old regulations would all be stalled. On top of that, recall campaigns would dominate the political landscape.
In such a scenario, how could the public enjoy stability and prosperity? Does President Lai believe that citizens would welcome a Taiwan under his leadership descending into chaos and becoming mired in dysfunction?
The competitive President Lai may not yet have figured out how to govern as a "40 percent president," leaving him caught in a bind. His judicial nominations were made without consulting party members, leading Liu, a candidate who was likely to secure confirmation, to be blocked by lawmakers of the ruling party. President Lai extended an olive branch by sending Speaker Han to attend Donald Trump’s inauguration in the United States and inviting Speaker Han for coffee, only to have Legislator Ker derail the gesture with a push for Speaker Han's recall. President Lai’s ambiguous stance on the widely debated large-scale recalls has further fueled speculation.
With such a disposition, how can the remaining 60 percent of voters believe that he genuinely prioritizes the nation’s best interests?
As Legislator Ker continues his reckless outbursts, public anger grows over his perceived crudeness and ignorance. When Minister without Portfolio Chen Shih-chung echoed calls for "large-scale recalls," it revealed a troubling blurring of lines, with cabinet officials acting more like party functionaries, eroding the principle of governance ethics. This conflation of party and state is also evident in the overlapping roles of "President Lai" and "Chairman Lai." Too often, President Lai seems to approach national governance as the party chairman, neglecting the stature required of a head of state.
A decade ago, then-Mayor Lai’s refusal to attend Tainan City Council sessions for over 200 days demonstrated a belief that he was "above the democratic system." But as president today, can he afford to disregard the need for proper governance and normal state operations?
Faced with political infighting, President Lai should neither be a provocateur nor remain a passive bystander. It is his responsibility to lead decisively and uphold the nation’s stability.