The nation’s first-ever vote on whether to recall a lawmaker took place yesterday, and, not surprisingly, all the efforts to recall Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Alex Tsai (蔡正元) failed to achieve the objective, not because voters objected to his recall, but because of the high thresholds, showing the urgent need for revisions to the Civil Servants Election and Recall Act (公職人員選舉罷免法).
Elections in Taiwan are often treated as festivities by many, with candidates and political parties holding a variety of campaign activities, including traditional rallies, concerts and parades, while large campaign ads and posters can be seen on just about every corner across the nation.
However, it is quite different when it comes to recall campaigns. Even though election and recall are both rights granted by the Constitution, the Civil Servants Election and Recall Act prohibits any campaign activities.
Perhaps the legislators who passed this law were convinced that voters would be more eager to recall than to elect an official, that they do not need anyone to remind them when the recall vote is being held, and that they would actively research why the elected official needs to be recalled.
There is also another difference between a recall and an election.
A candidate only needs a simple majority to be elected, meaning that the candidate could be elected with only one vote if they were the only candidate in the electoral district.
However, for a recall, at least 50 percent of eligible voters in that particular electoral district must cast their votes, and among those who vote, at least 50 percent of them must vote “yes” to the recall proposal.
This is how the math works here: in the 2012 legislative election, Tsai garnered 111,260 votes in his constituency, which was 48 percent of the votes in the district. However, for the recall, at least 158,717 eligible voters in the electoral district must cast their votes, and half of those people must vote “yes.”
Therefore, election law requires more people to vote to recall Tsai than those who voted to get him elected, and while Tsai won the legislative seat with 48 percent of the vote, it would take more than 50 percent of the votes to recall him.
According to final figures from the Central Election Commission, a total of 79,303 people voted in the recall yesterday, and an overwhelming majority of those who voted — 97.22 percent, or 76,737 votes — agreed that Tsai should be recalled, yet he safely survived while taking a good nap at home. Voter turnout was only 24.98 percent, much lower than the required 50 percent.
It does not take a rocket scientist — or a Grand Justice — to figure out that this may be a Constitutional issue.
After all, election and recall are two equally important rights of the people, so why should there be different preconditions for citizens to exercise these powers? If a politician can be elected with less than 50 percent of votes, then it should be possible to recall them with less than 50 percent of votes. If a 50 percent voter turnout is required in a recall, it should also be the requirement for an election.
This was the first-ever recall proposal that made it to the polling stations in this nation’s history. It is an important step forward for Taiwan’s maturing democracy, yet the strict requirements for a recall mean that there is still a long way to go.
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS