Civic groups have launched campaigns to recall legislators after improper legislation proposed mainly by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). The preposterous budget cuts and freezes that the KMT has led the way in pushing through have led to difficulties in government functioning and sparked nationwide discontent. Voices calling for recalls have spread far and wide, showing an upwelling in public consensus.
The threshold for a recall is high and passing one requires a strong consensus among voters. For KMT legislators who face the potential loss of their seats, the only means they have to protect themselves is to adjust their political stance and respond to voters’ demands, yet the KMT central leadership is responding to the recall crisis by proposing recalls of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators who have “acted improperly.”
The DPP is a minority in the legislature and is unable to guide its agenda — the KMT is in the driver’s seat. Despite attempts by DPP legislators to stop the budget disaster, they were restricted by their numerical disadvantage.
Seeing this, the electorate is not buying the KMT’s proposals to recall DPP lawmakers.
The central government general budget review process went completely off the rails this year and the Executive Yuan is expected to request a review. The atrocious review quality is one of the reasons for the rise in the number of people calling for a mass recall.
KMT legislators should acquiesce if the Executive Yuan seeks a reconsideration of the budget proposal and review it again, keeping in mind that acceptance of a review does not mean an unconditional acceptance of the Executive Yuan’s version. It would merely be an agreement to carry out a reasonable and rational review.
Through this process, budget cuts or freezes would still be a viable option, but they would be reasonable and well explained, not based on political vendettas or impulses.
The legislature’s duty is to serve as a check on the government’s budget, not to paralyze government operations.
By leveraging the control over the legislature that the opposition parties have, the KMT caucus’ aim would be to go through the motions if a review is conducted, but ultimately stick to its original proposal.
However, it faces increasing pressure from recalls. Every KMT legislator must answer to the voters in their respective districts. When recall groups question them, lawmakers must justify the cancelation or freezing of budget items.
A recall is not the same as a general election. Each recall petition is submitted independently and for a single legislator.
Lawmakers facing a recall must answer for their words and actions in office and articulate why they should not be recalled.
The best course of action would be to draw a line separating themselves from the improper legislation that has been approved and the unpopular budget measures. That would help them to show voters that they do not support irrational or unreasonable legislative decisions.
Voters have keen vision and hearing. If legislators blindly support the KMT caucus’ improper legislation, they would find it difficult to answer their constituencies. While the KMT leadership and caucus do not directly face the voters, individual lawmakers are unable to avoid pressure from them.
If their goal is to protect their political careers, the priority for KMT lawmakers would be to agree to reconsider the budget proposal they helped approve. In doing so, they could give the country another chance by guaranteeing unimpeded government functioning and avoid a shutdown of the legislature.
The KMT leadership has repeatedly said that it promotes legislation that “benefits peoples’ livelihoods,” but the most vital item it has sway over is the central government’s budget proposal.
It would be better for KMT legislators to undo the damage they have done.
The winds churning the great recall wave would only be calmed through the willingness of individual legislators to adjust their stance and not blindly support absurd decisions.
Wang Chih-chien is a distinguished professor in National Taipei University's Graduate Institute of Information Management.
Translated by Tim Smith
President William Lai (賴清德) attended a dinner held by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) when representatives from the group visited Taiwan in October. In a speech at the event, Lai highlighted similarities in the geopolitical challenges faced by Israel and Taiwan, saying that the two countries “stand on the front line against authoritarianism.” Lai noted how Taiwan had “immediately condemned” the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas and had provided humanitarian aid. Lai was heavily criticized from some quarters for standing with AIPAC and Israel. On Nov. 4, the Taipei Times published an opinion article (“Speak out on the
Eighty-seven percent of Taiwan’s energy supply this year came from burning fossil fuels, with more than 47 percent of that from gas-fired power generation. The figures attracted international attention since they were in October published in a Reuters report, which highlighted the fragility and structural challenges of Taiwan’s energy sector, accumulated through long-standing policy choices. The nation’s overreliance on natural gas is proving unstable and inadequate. The rising use of natural gas does not project an image of a Taiwan committed to a green energy transition; rather, it seems that Taiwan is attempting to patch up structural gaps in lieu of
News about expanding security cooperation between Israel and Taiwan, including the visits of Deputy Minister of National Defense Po Horng-huei (柏鴻輝) in September and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Francois Wu (吳志中) this month, as well as growing ties in areas such as missile defense and cybersecurity, should not be viewed as isolated events. The emphasis on missile defense, including Taiwan’s newly introduced T-Dome project, is simply the most visible sign of a deeper trend that has been taking shape quietly over the past two to three years. Taipei is seeking to expand security and defense cooperation with Israel, something officials
“Can you tell me where the time and motivation will come from to get students to improve their English proficiency in four years of university?” The teacher’s question — not accusatory, just slightly exasperated — was directed at the panelists at the end of a recent conference on English language learning at Taiwanese universities. Perhaps thankfully for the professors on stage, her question was too big for the five minutes remaining. However, it hung over the venue like an ominous cloud on an otherwise sunny-skies day of research into English as a medium of instruction and the government’s Bilingual Nation 2030
RSS