Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Hsu Yu-chen (許宇甄) has proposed amending the Civil Servants Election and Recall Act (公職人員選舉罷免法) to make it more difficult to recall elected representatives. The record of recall motions over the past decade shows that there is a legitimate need for updating the law, but Hsu’s proposals are not the way to go about this.
Prior to 2016, successful recalls were as rare as hen’s teeth. In 2014, a well-organized recall campaign for three pan-blue camp legislators reached the third phase of voting, the first time that had happened since 1994, but it ultimately failed due to the stringent requirements. After the thresholds were reduced in 2016, it became much easier to initiate a recall, and for the recall to be successful.
In 2017, then-New Power Party executive chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), now the leader of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) legislative caucus, faced a recall over his stance on marriage equality legislation. Although it was unsuccessful, the recall should never have got as far as it did. Huang had only acted in line with the position on which he had campaigned, and which was in line with a constitutional interpretation on the issue.
In June 2020, then-Kaohsiung mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) was recalled, having tested the patience of city residents with long absences while he campaigned for president. That recall was justified. The retributive recalls that followed were not.
Days after Han’s recall, the New Party announced it would launch a recall of then-Taiwan Statebuilding Party legislator Chen Po-wei (陳柏惟). Chen was recalled in October 2021. Former Taoyuan city councilor Wang Hao-yu (王浩宇) of the Democratic Progressive Party was recalled in January 2021, just a month before then-independent Kaohsiung City Councilor Huang Jie (黃捷) faced her own recall vote. Her only sin was that she was perceived to have somehow contributed to Han’s downfall. She survived the vote. Next up was then-independent legislator Freddie Lim (林昶佐), whose recall failed on Jan 9. 2022.
Han was recalled for legitimate reasons, Wang had arguably underperformed in his role. The reasons for seeking the recall of Huang Kuo-chang, Chen, Huang Jie and Lim were either unjustified, spiteful or purely political.
KMT and TPP legislators have been wreaking chaos in the legislature since the beginning of the new session in May, and are looking for ways to contain the possible damage their actions have caused to their performance ratings. Many voters are angry at their behavior, especially the young supporters of the TPP who had hoped the party would usher in a new era of more rational, less explicitly partisan politics.
KMT-affiliated Keeling Mayor George Hsieh (謝國樑) is also facing a recall motion. How much of a coincidence is it that the KMT’s Hsu is now proposing raising the threshold?
It is important that the electorate have a mechanism for recalling elected officials, but there must be a balance between access to it and the prevention of its abuse. Recalls should not be wielded by disgruntled voters seeking to remove a legislator they did not vote for or who they disagree with, neither should the system be open to abuse by parties to weaponize it for political reasons. Politicians must be free to act according to their convictions, without worrying that frivolous recalls would be brought against them.
Hsu’s proposed amendments would raise the threshold of the number of voters and the percentages of those for and against the recall at the voting stage. However, this is not a numbers game. Amendments should be aimed at ensuring the reasons for the recall are backed up by concrete evidence of wrongdoing or dereliction of duty.
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
Taiwan is not invited to the table. It never has been, but this year, with the Philippines holding the ASEAN chair, the question that matters is no longer who gets formally named, it is who becomes structurally indispensable. The “one China” formula continues to do its job. It sets the outer boundary of official diplomatic speech, and no one in the region has a serious interest in openly challenging it. However, beneath the surface, something is thickening. Trade corridors, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence (AI) cooperation, supply chains, cross-border investment: The connective tissue between Taiwan and ASEAN is quietly and methodically growing
RSS