When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8).
In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls.
The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired, civic groups and concerned voters took the idea and ran with it, initiating an unprecedented drive that Taiwan should be proud of.
Each one of yesterday’s 24 recall votes against KMT legislators failed, as did the one against suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安) of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), and yet the recall movement can still be held up as a victory for democracy, because of the scale of the mobilization. Victory in defeat, because sometimes the other candidate wins: It is the process that counts.
The process was driven from the bottom up, and recalls are a necessary democratic mechanism. However, the process itself might have disaffected many voters. It is possible that many would have voted “no” not because they supported the legislator representing their constituency, but because they supported the principle of terms of elected office, and felt uneasy about wresting an elected lawmaker from their seat in a mass recall so soon after last year’s legislative election.
Another element is that the recall motions were fighting an uphill battle, as they were — by definition — only being held in blue-leaning districts where the KMT had won just 18 months ago.
If anger over the mass recall contributed to yesterday’s failure, it leaves room for lingering frustration with the KMT’s disruptive, unconstitutional and suspiciously China-friendly actions in the legislature. This resentment could play a role in the next legislative elections, particularly if the KMT-TPP opposition fails to change tack.
KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) might be elated with yesterday’s results, but he would be unwise to be emboldened by them. He should take note of the groundswell of voter anger at the direction in which he has taken the opposition, but it is doubtful he will.
This is evident from the KMT and TPP’s decision, on the eve of the recall vote, to reject all seven of President William Lai’s (賴清德) grand justice nominees for the Constitutional Court — the second time in six months that all nominees have been rejected.
This blanket rejection, which would hobble the proper functioning of the nation’s constitutional system, is yet another example of the KMT’s willingness to prioritize party interests — possibly even Beijing’s agenda — over the national interest, and another reason voters are so alarmed by the opposition’s behavior.
It seems that Chu continues to believe his absurd claims that the recall movement was the result of a dictatorial president overseeing an authoritarian government, rather than reflecting the genuine concerns of large segments of the electorate.
Unfortunately, given yesterday’s results and Chu’s deafness to what the voters are telling him, the future appears to hold more chaos, only exacerbated by calls for retributive recalls against the DPP.
Ker’s desire for an easy way out of his challenges in the legislature have been dashed. The DPP cannot expect any good news from the seven more recalls, scheduled for Aug. 23, for the same reasons that yesterday’s foundered.
Chu would likely be emboldened, but it might be time for Lai to take off the gloves and adopt a more proactive approach against the opposition.
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