The mass recall movement marks a significant milestone in Taiwan’s history. The Central Election Commission (CEC) on Friday last week announced the results of its review into petitions to recall 24 lawmakers and one mayor, scheduling the vote for July 26.
The practice of using recall elections to oust politicians can be traced back more than 2,000 years to ancient Athens. The recall election serves as a mechanism to remove undesirable individuals, or those who violate societal rules and threaten civil order. The early form of recall election, inscribing the names of politicians on ostraca — the plural of ostracon, pottery sherds on which citizens inscribed names to vote for exile — as ballots, was meant to prevent politicians from abusing elected office.
The democratic practice of ostracism, which originated from the use of these ostraca, is a valuable export of Athenian democracy. Citizens would inscribe critical labels, such as “betrayer,” “traitor,” “slanderer,” or “main instigator” onto the ostraca. The sherds could also serve as historical records, avoiding the possibility of later revisionism by politicians. In Athenian democracy, citizens established various supervisory mechanisms to make sure the recall worked free from interference.
We call on the county and city local election commissions affiliated with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) not to act as turncoats of Taiwan. The local commissions should respect the rules set by the CEC, avoiding any deliberate, politically motivated violations of the law.
The actions of certain lawmakers have triggered an unprecedented feeling of unease among Taiwanese. Like the Athenians in ancient times, Taiwanese have initiated an ostracism-like election on the “turncoats” who might play a pivotal role in shaping the future of society. This recall election was launched by Taiwanese wanting to “ostracize” KMT and Taiwan People’s Party lawmakers for threatening constitutional violations and passing pro-China legislation.
However, the issue goes beyond the question of whether those lawmakers should be recalled: What truly matters is whether Taiwanese can continue to live in Taiwan as a home with peace and prosperity, for ourselves and generations to come.
We should all thank the civil groups involved, which have set a remarkable recall record in Taiwan’s political history, leaving an inspiring chapter.
Wong Chong-Gyiau is a former director of Tainan Theological College and Seminary.
Translated by Lai Wen-chieh
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS