A series of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-led recall efforts have come under fire following revelations of widespread forgery in the signature-gathering process. The most staggering case involves 1,923 forged signatures attributed to deceased people. On average, each campaign backed by the KMT contained more than 100 falsified entries — pointing not to isolated errors, but to a coordinated and systemic operation.
Despite the seriousness of the fraud, the KMT has neither apologized nor launched an internal investigation. One KMT legislator even dismissed the issue, remarking: “At most, it’s just forgery — is it really that serious?” That flippant response speaks volumes.
According to statistics, the KMT-led recall targeting a Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislator included 1,923 signatures from deceased people. By contrast, a civic-led recall effort against a KMT legislator included only 12 such cases. That is a 160-fold difference.
That is no clerical error — it is a criminal act. Under Article 210 of the Criminal Code, and articles 79 and 83 of the Public Officials Election and Recall Act (公職人員選舉罷免法), forged signatures on recall petitions must be struck from the record, and such an offense can result in up to five years in prison.
It is simple: Dead people cannot sign petitions. To argue otherwise is to insult the public’s intelligence — and break the law.
The irony is hard to ignore. Late last year, the KMT championed an amendment to Article 98-1 of the Public Officials Election and Recall Act, demanding tougher penalties for using personal data to forge signatures. The party warned the public not to take such fraud lightly.
Now? When the KMT’s youth wing is implicated in the most serious signature scandal to date, the KMT tries to downplay it as no big deal.
The scandal also reveals two starkly different approaches to political mobilization: The recall movement against the KMT lawmaker was initiated by civic organizations, with the DPP providing support during the second stage; in contrast, the recall targeting the DPP lawmaker was coordinated from the top down by the KMT — with party headquarters, legislators, local branches, public officials and the youth wing in full coordination.
What should be a democratic tool for public accountability has been co-opted into a partisan weapon. Instead of spontaneous grassroots action, we are seeing orchestrated political retaliation.
Because of the scale of the forgery, prosecutors and court staff have had to divert time and energy to verify fake data — time that could have been spent on real cases affecting the public good.
That is more than a legal headache — it is a costly waste of limited judicial resources.
The KMT appears to have misinterpreted the message sent by voters on Jan. 13 last year. What Taiwanese demanded was accountability, and checks and balances — not political warfare. Turning the mass recall movement into a battlefield for grudges only weakens public trust in the whole system.
A legislative majority is not a blank check to rewrite rules, twist facts or sidestep responsibility. It is a test of political maturity — a chance to lead with integrity and hold those in power accountable. So far, the KMT seems stuck in a pattern of denial, blame and cover-ups.
If they keep dodging the truth and refusing to take responsibility, the backlash will come — because while the dead cannot sign a petition, the living can still vote.
Gahon Chiang is a staff member for Legislator Kuan-Ting Chen, focusing on national security policy. He holds a master’s in international relations from National Taiwan University and serves as a youth representative to the Taichung City Government.
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