In 2024, political corruption scandals in the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), Kuomintang (KMT), the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) and political fiascos in the legislature are among the many factors that have placed severe pressure on Taiwan’s political system and challenge the country’s core value: democracy. I argue that although these challenges have created hurdles for the Taiwanese government and its people, I expect to witness a strengthened political system for Taiwan and a greater commitment to democracy by its people in 2025.
Corruption Scandals
First, it has been proven that high profile politicians from all three major political parties were deeply involved in political corruption scandals. In July, the ruling DPP party witnessed the downfall of one of its rising political stars, former Deputy Premier Cheng Wen-Tsan (鄭文燦),when the Taoyuan District Prosecutors’ Office began a bribery probe into Cheng’s involvement in a local real estate development project. Not only has the District Court approved Cheng’s detainment for two months, but Cheng has also been indicted for charges of corruption in August. Though the DPP’s integrity committee was quick to respond and order Cheng to be suspended for 3 years on the subsequent day of Cheng’s detention, this is a major blow for the ruling party insofar as losing credibility to its supporters and also a prominent contender for presidency/vice-presidency in 2026.
For the KMT, the Yilan County Magistrate Lin Zi-Mao (林姿妙) was sentenced to 12.5 years in prison for corruption and illegal gains via her supervisory role as a public leader, money laundering and possessing unaccounted-for assets as a civil servant on the 31 December. Additionally, KMT’s Hsinchu County Magistrate Yang Wen-ke （楊文科） and 11 others were accused of safeguarding Fong Yi Construction Co. from paying their legal responsibilities for using substandard materials at their construction site. Unsurprisingly, the KMT has voiced their full support for both Yang and Lin and continues to frame these charges as evidence demonstrating how the judiciary is rigged and has been ‘captured’ by politics. Juxtaposing the responses of the two main political parties when facing these corruption scandals evidently demonstrates their respective standards and morale when engaging in politics.
Finally, the TPP is also involved in political corruption scandals. It is well documented that TPP chairman Ko Wen-Ji founded the party with the claimed aspiration of making the party the ‘alternative’ to the traditional two-party political landscape of pan-green and pan-blue camps in Taiwan.
Yet, the first let-down was when Hsinchu Mayor Kai Hung-An (高虹安) received a prison sentence of more than 7 years from the Taipei District Court in July. Ko’s integrity came under scrutiny when he purchased a commercial property for more than $40 million TW dollars ( roughly US$ 1.3 million dollars) in May and was simultaneously searching for residential properties prized for more than $120 million TW dollars (roughly US$ 3.6 million dollars). Whilst the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office (TDOP) began investigating the alleged political corruption scandal between Ko and business tycoon Shen Ching-Ching on the Living Mall real estate development project, Ko’s shameless attempts to ‘milk the cash cow’ via campaigning for public office was gradually disclosed.
The 800-page statement of charges released by the TDOP against Ko shows that in addition to receiving bribes from Shen, Ko, with the assistance of close friends and supporters, had established numerous private entities, such as Mu Ke Public Relations Marking LTD., to illegally extract finances political contributions, donations and other sums of finances raised via fund-raising events from his supporters that were intended for his presidential campaign. Consequently, Ko has been requested by the Taipei District Prosecutors’ Office for a combined 28.5-year term of imprisonment.
Would the TPP survive the setback? I believe TPP’s 11 January national-wide protest rally against the Lai Administration would be a good reference for assessment. After Ko stepped down as TPP’s chairman at the beginning of 2025, TPP caucus convener Huang Kuo-Chang became acting chairman. Hence, with Huang in the realm for the first time and seeing Ko’s bail revoked for the third time by the Taiwan High Court on 3 January, the number of people that will attend the rally would reflect the sentiments of TPP supporters.
Ongoing Confrontation in the Legislature
Another front of intense domestic political confrontation has been taking place in the Legislative Yuan between the DPP and the KMT-TPP alliance. Notably, one of the essential elements of a democratic political system is adhering to the political doctrine of separation of power together with a mechanism of checks and balances. The underlying rationale is to prevent the fusion of power in a singular government sector, which often readily leads to the abuse of power. In the US, the separation of power is embodied in dividing the responsibilities of government among three respective branches: The Executive, the Legislature, and the Judicial system. Instead, with a balance of power achieved, it is expected to safeguard the fundamental individual rights of its subjects. In Taiwan, the constitution separates the central government into five different branches: Executive, Legislative, Examination, Judicial, and Control Yuans.
Recently, political disputes in the Legislative Yuan have been worrisome because legislation put forward by the KMT-TPP alliance would enable a substantial increase of power in the legislative branch, which prevails over the other four government agencies. For instance, the first controversial amendments were made to the Law Governing the Legislative Yuan’s Power Act this May. The new legislation will provide lawmakers the power to enquire any individual or entities (e.g. the military, private companies, the President) to disclose information deemed relevant by them and punish those who choose not to cooperate free of any consequences. Subsequently,the KMT-TPP alliance also passed the amendment to the Public Officials Election and Recall Act, which tightened requirements for recalling officials by the public.
The past week, the KMT-TPP alliance passed another controversial amendment to the Constitutional Court Procedure Act, which set a minimum number of justices required to back any unconstitutional rulings (i.e. 9 ). The amendment is considered to be a tactic adopted by the KMT-TPP to severely constrain the power of the judicial system vis-à-vis the Legislature. Given that 7 of the 15 justices completed their 8-year tenure on 31 October, the amended Act effectively immobilised the Constitutional Court due to a raised threshold for the Court to hear and decide cases.
The Resilience of Taiwan’s Democratic Political System and the Power of the Public
Surely, domestic political disputes had intensified and frequently occurred in 2024. Yet, I argue that close observations on the respective responses of the political system, the Lai Administration, and the general public all allow us to maintain optimism moving forward. Three reasons underpin this proposition.
First, one must underscore the resilience of Taiwan’s democratic political system during this process. For instance, the previous section has illustrated how the Legislative Yuan has attempted to expand its power over the Executive and Judicial branches of the central government. Nevertheless, the Legislature’s attempt has proven to be more complicated than one expects. For instance, both state actors in the executive and judicial branches were still able to respond to the bill via a number of actions. Firstly, the Premier (i.e. Executive Branch) was able to reject and send back the legislation for review. After this attempt had been ineffective, the Constitutional Court (i.e. Judicial Branch) was capable of ruling the legislation unconstitutional,which effectively halted the implementation of the reform bill.
Indeed, by means of passing the Constitutional Court Procedure Act, the KMT-TPP alliance did immobilise the safeguarding mechanisms provided by the Constitutional Court. Yet, the political system still allows the Premier to request a new vote on the bill again. In addition, President Lai also has the power to nominate a new round of justice candidates for the Legislature’s approval. Once this is completed, it would revert the functions of the Constitutional Court.
Second, on the basis of President Lai’s 2025 New Year’s talk, it is evident that the DPP is open to having dialogues with the KMT and the TPP on the confrontations in the legislature. For instance, Lai not only acknowledged that ‘domestic competition among political parties [as] a party of democracy…and [that] political disputes must be resolved democratically’ but also stated that ‘everyone has a responsibility to safeguard Taiwan’s democracy’. Lai’s speech implies that he would rule out utilising any political means that will jeopardise the value of democracy to solve disputes among political parties, such as declaring the implementation of martial law.
Finally, the general public has responded to the intensified political disputes with peaceful measures, such as exercising their rights of freedom of speech and the right to recall. For instance, the passage of the amendments to the Law Governing the Legislative Yuan’s Power in May led to the creation of the ‘Bluebird Movement’. Though approximately 70,000 individualsgathered and engaged in the rally, it did not spur any violence. It remained a peaceful demonstration where people were granted the opportunity to voice their opinions on stage. Another example is how various constituencies across the country have begun petitions to recall their legislators in the wake of the passage of the Public Officials Election and Recall Act.
Compared to the attempted assassination of President Trump during his presidential campaign and the passing of former Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzo, one should praise the rational and peaceful response of Taiwan’s general public.
Conclusions
In this short article, I have presented the political struggles Taiwan has faced in 2024. Taiwan has been troubled by many political scandals and disputes in the past year. Yet, the resilience of Taiwan’s democratic political system, the willingness of Lai to adopt democratic measures to solve political disputes with opposition parties, and the response of the general public to adopt democratic means in expressing their approval and disapproval of current political deadlocks (e.g. demonstration and petition for recall elections), all demonstrate an increased maturity of Taiwan’s democracy and the public’s commitment to defend democracy when it is at risk.
This article is published on Taiwan Insight