All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it.
The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at least some of lawmakers. While seven KMT legislators received “yes” recall votes surpassing the required 25 percent threshold, they did not exceed the number of “no” ballots opposing their recall.
Initially driven by dissatisfaction toward the KMT’s and TPP’s abuses of legislative power and neglect of procedure, the recall campaigns were later reinforced by calls to defend Taiwan from China-friendly KMT lawmakers. Nevertheless, they failed to appeal to voters in the 24 targeted constituencies, primarily in urban Taipei, Taoyuan and Taichung, where the DPP lacked prominent leaders.
The TPP, which would have lost its position as the critical “third party” if the KMT lost more than six seats, has tied its future with the KMT. In the two months leading up to the recall election, the parties focused on opposing what they called a one-party dominant system by the DPP, framing the recall as a DPP initiative to deprive voters of their elected lawmakers, as well as the additional national holidays and NT$10,000 cash handout the KMT and TPP pushed through the legislature.
Political parties and candidates often pledge to implement policies that “can be felt” by the voters. However, the outcome of Saturday’s recall election suggests that the normal functioning of the constitutional system, legislative procedures, and details on budgets and bills could be too complicated for or of little interest to most voters. Even the threat of China’s infiltrations in Taiwanese politics feels too distant, compared with voters’ perceived threat of being deprived of their holidays, cash handouts and their choice of elected officials.
Amid shrinking attention spans, recall campaigners had a difficult task reaching out to voters and explaining the reasons for the recall bids. Those voters might instead view the campaigners’ passion as a disturbance to the relative stability of a non-election year. Meanwhile, the message of an imminent threat of Chinese infiltration failed to strike a chord with many voters, as China’s daily military incursions, suppression of Taiwan’s international space and subtle attempts to undermine Taiwanese trust in their democratic system are not “directly felt” by voters in their daily lives. Some might even feel that Chinese entertainment and influencers on TikTok and Xiaohongshu (also known as RedNote in English) or the Labubu craze are more relatable, and that fighting communism and defending Taiwan are just political slogans to solicit votes.
Saturday’s outcome might be disappointing to civic groups, but it is not a total failure, as the process has made some people rethink democracy, and again displayed Taiwan’s thriving democracy to the world through a peaceful election initiated at the grassroots level by people from all walks of life.
However, the DPP-led government must see the outcome as a serious warning that its messaging efforts to raise public awareness of Chinese infiltration must be modified to be “felt” and understood by people and implement more policies that directly improve people’s lives. It also needs to work on new solutions to reconcile with the KMT and TPP, or it is doomed to face stronger resistance in the Legislative Yuan, crippling its governance in the coming days.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS