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.
The government and local industries breathed a sigh of relief after Shin Kong Life Insurance Co last week said it would relinquish surface rights for two plots in Taipei’s Beitou District (北投) to Nvidia Corp. The US chip-design giant’s plan to expand its local presence will be crucial for Taiwan to safeguard its core role in the global artificial intelligence (AI) ecosystem and to advance the nation’s AI development. The land in dispute is owned by the Taipei City Government, which in 2021 sold the rights to develop and use the two plots of land, codenamed T17 and T18, to the
US President Donald Trump has announced his eagerness to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong-un while in South Korea for the APEC summit. That implies a possible revival of US-North Korea talks, frozen since 2019. While some would dismiss such a move as appeasement, renewed US engagement with North Korea could benefit Taiwan’s security interests. The long-standing stalemate between Washington and Pyongyang has allowed Beijing to entrench its dominance in the region, creating a myth that only China can “manage” Kim’s rogue nation. That dynamic has allowed Beijing to present itself as an indispensable power broker: extracting concessions from Washington, Seoul
Taiwan’s labor force participation rate among people aged 65 or older was only 9.9 percent for 2023 — far lower than in other advanced countries, Ministry of Labor data showed. The rate is 38.3 percent in South Korea, 25.7 percent in Japan and 31.5 percent in Singapore. On the surface, it might look good that more older adults in Taiwan can retire, but in reality, it reflects policies that make it difficult for elderly people to participate in the labor market. Most workplaces lack age-friendly environments, and few offer retraining programs or flexible job arrangements for employees older than 55. As
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
RSS