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.
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
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,
Much has been said about the significance of the recall vote, but here is what must be said clearly and without euphemism: This vote is not just about legislative misconduct. It is about defending Taiwan’s sovereignty against a “united front” campaign that has crept into the heart of our legislature. Taiwanese voters on Jan. 13 last year made a complex decision. Many supported William Lai (賴清德) for president to keep Taiwan strong on the world stage. At the same time, some hoped that giving the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) a legislative majority would offer a
Owing to the combined majority of the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), the legislature last week voted to further extend the current session to the end of next month, prolonging the session twice for a total of 211 days, the longest in Taiwan’s democratic history. Legally, the legislature holds two regular sessions annually: from February to May, and from September to December. The extensions pushed by the opposition in May and last week mean there would be no break between the first and second sessions this year. While the opposition parties said the extensions were needed to