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
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
Taiwan’s long-term care system has fallen into a structural paradox. Staffing shortages have led to a situation in which almost 20 percent of the about 110,000 beds in the care system are vacant, but new patient admissions remain closed. Although the government’s “Long-term Care 3.0” program has increased subsidies and sought to integrate medical and elderly care systems, strict staff-to-patient ratios, a narrow labor pipeline and rising inflation-driven costs have left many small to medium-sized care centers struggling. With nearly 20,000 beds forced to remain empty as a consequence, the issue is not isolated management failures, but a far more
RSS