It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it.
However, they never show any proof — because there is not any.
It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These are serious charges. In any country, accusing the government of orchestrating a political purge without proof would be called defamation.
So I did what journalists are supposed to do: I went to the streets of Taipei and spent time with recall campaigners.
What I saw was anything but a top-down government operation. Campaigners told me how a small Facebook group, venting about the pro-China stances of some legislators, grew into a decentralized movement of citizens organizing recalls.
They had makeshift signs, sang songs to keep up morale and double-checked the complex rules around signature collection — because none of them was a professional.
Some were former KMT voters who said they voted to “maintain the status quo, not surrender to China.”
One elderly man, a fan of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), said that being a “true blue” KMT supporter means opposing the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) — not siding with it. He is now helping with the recall.
Far from DPP propaganda, the campaigners had put up posters of Chiang, not DPP figures. The main target of their signs was KMT Legislator Wang Hung-wei (王鴻薇), presented as the poster woman for pro-CCP politics — also a way to avoid stigmatizing the KMT as a whole. The recall was taking place in a solidly blue district, yet they collected more than enough signatures. No one tried to stop them.
I was there when a DPP councilor came by. She shook hands, looked cautiously hopeful and quietly left after a short visit. She did not act like someone overseeing a DPP operation. She seemed surprised by how widespread and energetic the campaign was.
That matches what I heard when the campaign first started: The DPP did not believe the recall would work. They are now taken by surprise at its success.
Of course, some would say the campaigners lied to me — which would mean accusing them, without proof, of having orchestrated an entire event just for my benefit. However, is it really so hard to believe they could be grassroots activists?
The movement is not the first recall campaign in the country’s history. Taiwan has a long tradition of citizen activism for a wide variety of causes. Over the years, I have met Taiwanese campaigners advocating for everything from same-sex marriage to neighborhood zoning. They know how to organize.
At the recall site, one man said he used to campaign for LGBTQ+ rights and brought those skills to the recall effort. So why are people supposed to believe the same people suddenly became incapable of self-mobilization?
There is a bias and double-standard at play, too: If this were happening in a Western democracy, no one would doubt it was grassroots.
Of course, you would not hear about it. The usual crowd that writes on Taiwan is too busy speculating about a war that has not happened, quoting “experts” in articles bloated with “may,” “might” and “could” every time China bats an eyelid.
That is how you end up reading casual accusations that the campaigners are Lai’s personal pawns rather than concerned citizens. Why go and meet them when you can just repeat what the experts said?
This column is not about endorsing the recall, nor is it defending any party. It is about pushing back on a false narrative. Accusing the government of orchestrating the movement without proof is not analysis — it is defamation. Especially when field experience shows something genuine — and actually familiar: the typical scenes of Taiwanese grassroots activism.
I will be the first to change my mind if someone shows me clear evidence that the government is behind it. Until then, I will stick to what I witnessed with my own eyes. That will serve readers better.
Julien Oeuillet is a journalist in Taiwan. He is the founding editor of Indo-Pacific Open News. He also writes and produces radio and television programs for several English-language publications globally.
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
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
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