In a democratic society, the voters select politicians for elected office. These elected officials are then responsible for governing in their respective jurisdiction, and should undertake to perform all of the associated political and legal duties. If, for some reason, the politician that the voters had chosen falls short of the duties he or she is responsible for in that position, and cannot be relieved of this position before the term ends, then the work of the government cannot be carried out successfully. It is the voters that are left dealing with the repercussions of this failure of governance. Unfortunately, this is just a fact of life.
This is the situation that has been unfolding in Keelung. By most standards, the city of Keelung has, for several years now, seen the serious misuse of public resources, grievous lack of judgment in policy prioritization and questionable decisions when it comes to disaster response.
SHORTCOMINGS
This weekend, Keelung Mayor George Hsieh (謝國樑) survived a recall vote, with 86,604 votes against the recall and 69,934 for, with a turnout of 50.44 percent. Judging by the results, one would have to conclude that the majority of Keelung residents believe that Hsieh’s shortcomings are not serious enough to necessitate his leaving office before his term is up: They have decided to allow him to continue to serve as Keelung mayor.
As such, the city residents would have to put up with the repercussions of Hsieh’s continued governance, for good or for bad, especially the effect that it would have on the daily lives of ordinary people.
No matter how much the talking heads from other cities, counties or special municipalities have to say about the situation or how much sense their analysis made, they are not the people that would be affected by whether the recall was successful or not. Now that the recall has failed, residents of other locales would not have to carry the burden that is Hsieh’s leadership.
MISINTERPRETATIONS
It must also be said that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), to which Hsieh belongs, need not read too much into this rejection of the recall: It is not a national poll on the party that is showing the approval of the public; neither does it mean that the KMT has received a mandate from the country to continue its agenda within political arenas such as the Legislative Yuan.
The KMT needs to know that the public is very dissatisfied with its performance in the latest legislative session, seeking to grab more power for itself in the name of legislative “reform.”
NATIONWIDE SENTIMENT
In the recall campaign, the KMT mobilized the whole party’s machinery and members to support Hsieh and ensure that he was not recalled, but the result only reflects the latest trajectory of public opinion within Keelung itself and should not be extrapolated to the feeling within Taiwan as a whole.
If the KMT continues to disregard President William Lai’s (賴清德) call for reconciliation between the government and opposition parties — such as remarks he made during his Double Ten National Day address on Thursday last week — and misunderstands the public’s mood as a whole, the failed recall would only delay the eventual breakout of the public’s dissatisfaction with the KMT and the party would be emboldened to act on any further “retributive recalls” that it might be eyeing.
Roger Wu lives in New Taipei City and works in the service sector.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS