Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and its alleged local collaborators — specifically KMT lawmakers.
With the nation’s two largest parties mobilizing supporters in competing rallies over the weekend, political tensions have soared, creating a charged pre-election atmosphere. However, voters should maintain a clear perspective and ask themselves a fundamental question: Are the nation’s lawmakers fulfilling their duties with integrity, in accordance with the Constitution and in defense of public interests and civil rights? Avoid emotional appeals and disinformation.
After KMT groups failed to successfully initiate recalls of DPP lawmakers — many of whom are facing lawsuits for alleged petition signature forgery — the KMT has framed the civic recall efforts as a reactionary move by the “sore loser” DPP, aiming to regain legislative control and accusing President William Lai (賴清德) of seeking “dictatorial power.”
However, the origins of the unprecedented mass recall campaign trace to the “Bluebird” protest movement of May last year, which emerged as a response to KMT and Taiwan People’s Party lawmakers’ series of controversial legislative reform bills that were seen as an attempt to weaken Taiwan’s democracy, paralyze Lai’s administration and increase the power of the legislature to paralyze the central government.
Instead of addressing public concerns, the opposition alliance doubled down, refusing to confirm judges to the Constitutional Court, rendering it inoperable, while also reallocating central government budgets to local governments — where the KMT holds more power — and cutting or freezing large portions of this year’s central government budget. The actions were widely criticized as going too far and seriously affecting the nation’s governance, sparking the recall campaigns.
The KMT’s delegation of lawmakers meeting with Chinese officials and supporting controversial China-friendly bills only added fuel to the fire, intensifying fears that the KMT is harming the nation and intends to “sell out” Taiwan to China.
KMT lawmakers have also repeatedly blocked DPP bills from being listed for committee discussion, bypassed committee reviews and public hearings, and hastily passed their own bills — often revealed only minutes before direct voting. The bills, which include additional holidays, increased military salaries and universal cash handouts, were clearly aimed at garnering support amid the recalls, despite their likely unconstitutionality.
However, this very behavior — disregard for democracy and the rule of law — is what has led to the recall campaigns. While the KMT claims to be defending democracy, its understanding appears to be limited to the belief that its majority status grants it the right to make arbitrary decisions and bypass any discussions, checks or balances through constitutional protections.
The recall election is a democratic mechanism that allows citizens to assess and remove “unfit” officials before their term ends. It serves to halt the damage being done and to allow voters to choose a more suitable candidate, whether from any party or no party at all — ultimately, the decision is in the hands of the voters, to be made rationally.
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS