The unprecedented presidential recall vote failed to achieve the required majority to pass. Although the motion came to naught, emotions within the pan-blue camp continue to run high. Some want to take a more moderate stance, while others want a no confidence vote in the Cabinet. It seems Taiwanese politics will continue to sway between these two forces for a while longer.
The public doesn't seem to have a choice, and although a minority choose to participate in the political show, the majority are silent bystanders or simply part of the stage set.
Why are the Taiwanese people so helpless? Prior to the legislative vote on the presidential recall motion, People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (
"The right to vote on whether or not to recall President Chen Shui-bian [
The reason the public is helpless is that the legislature has substantively deprived them of their right to direct popular power.
How could the Legislative Yuan have such great power over the people? Our history speaks for itself.
On Aug. 23, 2003, after Non-partisan Solidarity Union lawmakers abstained from voting, the legislature passed the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) and the PFP's version of amendments to the Additional Articles of the Constitution (
These laws are similar and share a common goal: the intentional obstruction of direct popular power.
The failure of the KMT and the PFP's recall motion was a result of stringent legal requirements formulated by themselves, but that did not stop them from blaming the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) for not cooperating and the Constitution for being flawed.
This is not the first time the pan-blue camp's attempts to block democracy have come back to bite them. Under the former KMT administration, the KMT canceled the legislature's right to approve the appointment of a new premier, to prevent DPP lawmakers from blocking a KMT-nominated premier. When the new regulation became effective in 2000 after the DPP took over power, the KMT began advocating the idea that the majority party in the legislature should form the Cabinet.
KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) moves are equally unreasonable. He said that more than 1.7 million signatures had been collected during the signature drive demanding that Chen resign, and that in about a week, the total number of signatures would reach 2.2 million, the threshold for a popularly initiated referendum.
If public opinion was really that strongly in favor of recalling Chen, Ma should have long ago initiated a referendum to lower the threshold for referendums and presidential recalls. That is the only way the KMT and PFP legislators would be able to pass a presidential recall motion by themselves.
Regardless of the motives behind the recent recall motion, the public should study Ma and Soong's rhetoric and rationally consider the importance of direct popular power. If they don't, they may well be utterly confused by the ongoing political show.
Huang Yu-lin is chief executive officer and spokesperson of the Constitutional Reform Alliance.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
It is difficult not to agree with a few points stated by Christian Whiton in his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” and yet the main idea is flawed. I am a Polish journalist who considers Taiwan her second home. I am conservative, and I might disagree with some social changes being promoted in Taiwan right now, especially the push for progressiveness backed by leftists from the West — we need to clean up our mess before blaming the Taiwanese. However, I would never think that those issues should dominate the West’s judgement of Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. The question is not whether
In 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.
RSS