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
Taiwan’s higher education system is facing an existential crisis. As the demographic drop-off continues to empty classrooms, universities across the island are locked in a desperate battle for survival, international student recruitment and crucial Ministry of Education funding. To win this battle, institutions have turned to what seems like an objective measure of quality: global university rankings. Unfortunately, this chase is a costly illusion, and taxpayers are footing the bill. In the past few years, the goalposts have shifted from pure research output to “sustainability” and “societal impact,” largely driven by commercial metrics such as the UK-based Times Higher Education (THE) Impact
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
The inter-Korean relationship, long defined by national division, offers the clearest mirror within East Asia for cross-strait relations. Yet even there, reunification language is breaking down. The South Korean government disclosed on Wednesday last week that North Korea’s constitutional revision in March had deleted references to reunification and added a territorial clause defining its border with South Korea. South Korea is also seriously debating whether national reunification with North Korea is still necessary. On April 27, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung marked the eighth anniversary of the Panmunjom Declaration, the 2018 inter-Korean agreement in which the two Koreas pledged to
I wrote this before US President Donald Trump embarked on his uneventful state visit to China on Thursday. So, I shall confine my observations to the joint US-Philippine military exercise of April 20 through May 8, known collectively as “Balikatan 2026.” This year’s Balikatan was notable for its “firsts.” First, it was conducted primarily with Taiwan in mind, not the Philippines or even the South China Sea. It also showed that in the Pacific, America’s alliance network is still robust. Allies are enthusiastic about America’s renewed leadership in the region. Nine decades ago, in 1936, America had neither military strength
RSS