The nation’s first-ever vote on whether to recall a lawmaker took place yesterday, and, not surprisingly, all the efforts to recall Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Alex Tsai (蔡正元) failed to achieve the objective, not because voters objected to his recall, but because of the high thresholds, showing the urgent need for revisions to the Civil Servants Election and Recall Act (公職人員選舉罷免法).
Elections in Taiwan are often treated as festivities by many, with candidates and political parties holding a variety of campaign activities, including traditional rallies, concerts and parades, while large campaign ads and posters can be seen on just about every corner across the nation.
However, it is quite different when it comes to recall campaigns. Even though election and recall are both rights granted by the Constitution, the Civil Servants Election and Recall Act prohibits any campaign activities.
Perhaps the legislators who passed this law were convinced that voters would be more eager to recall than to elect an official, that they do not need anyone to remind them when the recall vote is being held, and that they would actively research why the elected official needs to be recalled.
There is also another difference between a recall and an election.
A candidate only needs a simple majority to be elected, meaning that the candidate could be elected with only one vote if they were the only candidate in the electoral district.
However, for a recall, at least 50 percent of eligible voters in that particular electoral district must cast their votes, and among those who vote, at least 50 percent of them must vote “yes” to the recall proposal.
This is how the math works here: in the 2012 legislative election, Tsai garnered 111,260 votes in his constituency, which was 48 percent of the votes in the district. However, for the recall, at least 158,717 eligible voters in the electoral district must cast their votes, and half of those people must vote “yes.”
Therefore, election law requires more people to vote to recall Tsai than those who voted to get him elected, and while Tsai won the legislative seat with 48 percent of the vote, it would take more than 50 percent of the votes to recall him.
According to final figures from the Central Election Commission, a total of 79,303 people voted in the recall yesterday, and an overwhelming majority of those who voted — 97.22 percent, or 76,737 votes — agreed that Tsai should be recalled, yet he safely survived while taking a good nap at home. Voter turnout was only 24.98 percent, much lower than the required 50 percent.
It does not take a rocket scientist — or a Grand Justice — to figure out that this may be a Constitutional issue.
After all, election and recall are two equally important rights of the people, so why should there be different preconditions for citizens to exercise these powers? If a politician can be elected with less than 50 percent of votes, then it should be possible to recall them with less than 50 percent of votes. If a 50 percent voter turnout is required in a recall, it should also be the requirement for an election.
This was the first-ever recall proposal that made it to the polling stations in this nation’s history. It is an important step forward for Taiwan’s maturing democracy, yet the strict requirements for a recall mean that there is still a long way to go.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS