The Legislative Yuan late last month passed an amendment to the Civil Servants Election and Recall Act (公職人員選舉罷免法) which lowered the threshold for recalling elected officials and relaxed the restrictions on recall campaigns.
While the recall system is designed to provide a way to remove elected officials who are unfit for their positions, defining what makes them “unfit” can be problematic as people tend to be subjective. In addition, a campaign to recall an elected official is a highly sensitive political activity.
The law therefore has had a high threshold for recalling officials in order to prevent unnecessary political conflict and situations where people abuse the election recall system as a way to settle political scores.
These considerations notwithstanding, the amendment lowered the threshold for submitting a recall petition from requiring the signatures of 2 percent of all registered voters within an elected official’s constituency to 1 percent. It will make submitting a recall petition significantly easier.
Former politicians seeking revenge on their political enemies or people who they feel have betrayed them could be prompted to exploit the new law as a way to settle old scores.
Even if they do not succeed in recalling an elected official, merely submitting a recall petition can be a source of great trouble for their target.
The amendment also reduced the required number of signatures supporting a recall petition from 13 percent to 10 percent of voters in a constituency. As a result, not only will there be more recall proposals submitted, there will also be an increase in successful recall petitions. This could further intensify political conflict.
Once the sufficient number of signatures have been obtained to submit a petition, a recall election can be held. In the past, a recall election could not be held alongside another election, but the amendment has lifted that restriction.
Allowing recalls to be held together with another election saves money, but it could potentially be confusing to voters, as an election is fundamentally different from a recall vote.
While the former is characterized by passionate campaign events, the latter requires voters to be very calm and to take care.
Holding the two events at the same time is potentially unfair to an elected official as it could lead to the removal of good, decient and capable officials.
The amendment also lifted the restrictions on campaigns promoting the recall of an elected official.
Such campaigns were originally banned to prevent voters from making impulsive decisions or habitually resorting to recalls, as the recall system is primarily designed for special circumstances.
The removal of the restriction, along with the lowered thresholds, allow recall petitioners to hold endless campaigns until they achieve their goal, in turn making it more difficult for voters to remain calm and rational.
This could have a major impact on society and the government must address any problems that arise from the amendment with care.
The amendment also lowered the threshold for a recall.
Before the amendment, recalling an elected official required at least half of all eligible voters in an official’s constituency to vote and more than half of them to vote for the recall for it to succeed.
In the amended version, as long as there are more people voting for the recall than those voting against it, and as long as the number of those voting for the recall exceeds a quarter of a constituency’s voting population, the recall would be successful.
This threshold is very low and the increased chance of successfully recalling an elected official means that people are likely to feel encouraged to submit more recall petitions.
The amendment to the Civil Servants Election and Recall Act significantly lowered the threshold for recalling elected officials and this will inevitably alter the nation’s political scene.
Any newly elected official could face a recall one year into their term, while incumbent officials of the ruling party could be recalled at any time.
The government must be careful handling the impact of the amendment, as it signifies a major change in the nation’s political system.
Chi Chun-chen is a professor at the Ming Chuan University Department of Public Affairs.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers