On Dec. 25 last year, New Power Party (NPP) Executive Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), elected as legislator for New Taipei City’s 12th district, received a Christmas gift from the Greater Taipei Stability Power Alliance.
Alliance chairman Sun Chi-cheng (孫繼正) announced that his group had collected 3,124 valid signatures to file a petition for Huang’s recall.
The petition was started primarily because of Huang’s stance on marriage equality legislation.
Article 76 of the Civil Servants Election and Recall Act (公職人員選舉罷免法) states that applications for a recall petition have to be signed by at least 1 percent of the total voters in the elected official’s district — 2,511 signatures in Huang’s case.
Article 81 of the act states that at least 10 percent of the district’s voters — 25,119 signatures — are required to launch a recall vote.
These thresholds were recently lowered from 2 percent and 13 percent respectively, through amendments to the law that, ironically, the NPP supported, as it made it easier for voters to recall elected officials.
Huang has long been an advocate of the legalization of same-sex marriage. Although people seeking his recall say they did not know his stance on the issue when he ran for election, Huang on March 3 reiterated that he had made his position clear during his campaign.
Alliance secretary-general Yu Hsin-yi (游信義) on April 8 said: “Have voters ever given Huang the authority to push for homosexual marriage? He is ignoring public opinion.”
Let us put aside for a moment that Yu also ran in last year’s legislative elections for the Faith and Hope League — on a platform opposing marriage equality — and the league failed to win a single seat.
Let us also forget that the Council of Grand Justices issued a constitutional interpretation on May 24 in favor of the legalization of same-sex marriage and Yu responded by saying that it was wrong for the “lawmaking body to interfere with justice.”
The point here is not what one’s stance is on any specific issue; it is about the principle of elected representatives and their tacit contract with their constituents. It is about what powers are invested in these representatives and for what reasons these might be wrested from them by a small percentage of the electorate.
First, have voters given Huang the authority to push for marriage equality? If he had made his stance clear on that particular issue at the time of his election campaign, that is exactly what they did.
Second, is he ignoring public opinion? No, with a Ministry of Justice online poll on same-sex marriage released on Oct. 31 last year showing that 71 percent of respondents supported a marriage equality law.
What Huang is doing is respectfully disagreeing with the opinion of opponents of a long-held stance on which he campaigned.
Voters cannot agree with everything the lawmaker they send to the legislature believes in. They will also vote for them on the basis of the party they stand for, the strength of that person’s convictions and their moral fortitude as a candidate.
It is good that the threshold to recall a legislator is not so unsurmountable that it essentially blocks the electorate out of that process. That way, it is possible for voters to remove lawmakers who continually fail to carry out their responsibilities, renege on their campaign promises, consistently act in dubious ways, lack moral fortitude or disingenuously fail to faithfully represent the people of their constituency.
That is not what is happening here.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS