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.
For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s “century of humiliation” is the gift that keeps on giving. Beijing returns again and again to the theme of Western imperialism, oppression and exploitation to keep stoking the embers of grievance and resentment against the West, and especially the US. However, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that in 1949 announced it had “stood up” soon made clear what that would mean for Chinese and the world — and it was not an agenda that would engender pride among ordinary Chinese, or peace of mind in the international community. At home, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) launched
The restructuring of supply chains, particularly in the semiconductor industry, was an essential part of discussions last week between Taiwan and a US delegation led by US Undersecretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment Keith Krach. It took precedent over the highly anticipated subject of bilateral trade partnerships, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) founder Morris Chang’s (張忠謀) appearance on Friday at a dinner hosted by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for Krach was a subtle indicator of this. Chang was in photographs posted by Tsai on Facebook after the dinner, but no details about their discussions were disclosed. With
Astride an ascended economy and military, with global influence nearing biblical proportions, Xi Jinping (習近平) — general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), chairman of the Central Military Commission and president of the People’s Republic of China — is faithfully heralded, in deeds and imagery, as a benevolent lord, determined to “build a community of common destiny for all mankind.” Rather than leading humanity to this Shangri-La through inspirational virtue a la Mahatma Gandhi or Abraham Lincoln, the CCP prefers a micromanagement doctrine of socialism with Chinese characteristics as the guiding light. A doctrine of Marxist orthodoxy transplanted under a canvas
On Sept. 8, at the high-profile Ketagalan security forum, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) urged countries to deal with the China challenge. She said: “It is time for like-minded countries, and democratic friends in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond, to discuss a framework to generate sustained and concerted efforts to maintain a strategic order that deters unilateral aggressive actions.” The “Taiwan model” to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic provides an alternative to China’s authoritarian way of handling it. Taiwan’s response to the health crisis has made it evident that countries across the world have much to learn from Taiwan’s best practices and if