Brian Hioeby Brian Hioe
語言:
English
Photo Credit: Eric Chu/Facebook
THE KMT CONTINUES with efforts to raise benchmarks and institute ID requirements for recalls to be held in Taiwan.
In particular, the KMT currently calls for requiring ID checks for signatures on recall petitions. Likewise, the KMT aims to change laws so that for an elected official to be recalled, the number of votes needs to be higher than the number of votes that the official was originally elected by. If the latter measure passes, it would be difficult for any politician to be recalled in Taiwan, seeing as voter turnout for recalls is rarely ever as large as for elections.
It is less clear how the KMT’s ally, the TPP, currently stands on the issue. The TPP has shifted its stance to being in support of instituting ID checks for recall petitions, but not being in favor of raising the benchmark for recall votes.
The KMT’s efforts to raise the barriers for holding recall votes began early this year. This was in order to protect Keelung mayor George Hsieh from facing recall.
The KMT did not succeed in preventing the recall vote against Hsieh from taking place, though Hsieh hung onto power. But while the recall vote against Hsieh was ultimately unsuccessful, the KMT continues with efforts to make holding recalls more difficult.
In the wake of the Bluebird Movement this year, which broke out over efforts by the KMT to expand legislative powers by stripping away powers that belong to the executive and judicial branches of government, some organizers sought to shift the momentum of the movement toward recalling KMT legislators. After all, seeing as the pan-Blue camp’s majority in the legislature only holds if the KMT and TPP vote together on issues, and this majority is not very large, the possibility of recalling pan-Blue lawmakers could potentially shift the balance of power in the legislature.
Nevertheless, it would prove challenging voting out pan-Blue legislators. For one, the KMT legislators that were most often targets of ire from protesters over inflammatory statements or actions, such as Hsu Chiao-hsin, Chen Yu-chen, or Ma Wen-chun, were largely in solidly pan-Blue districts in which it would be difficult recalling them. But the barriers for recalls to take place are already considerable.
Photo credit: Eric Chu/Facebook
Civil society groups have criticized the KMT’s efforts to make it more difficult for recalls to take place. The ID requirement for petitions has been criticized as potentially leading to privacy and information security issues. After all, there have been many incidents of individuals with links to organized crime being involved in vote buying or recall petition signature collection in Taiwan, raising the possibility of ID information being collected by individuals with links to organized crime and then used for fraud. Moreover, the KMT has been criticized as attempting to take the right of recall away from the voters.
This proves another time in past years in which recalls and referendums have been fought over. In the wake of the 2014 Sunflower Movement, there was a strong push from Taiwanese civil society to lower benchmarks for recalls and referendums in order to target pan-Blue politicians with checkered political records, and in order to address national issues by way of a national vote. Yet when the KMT was able to leverage referendums against the DPP, the DPP later sought to raise the barriers for referendums to be held.
It proves ironic for TPP caucus chair Huang Kuo-chang to side with the KMT regarding raising the benchmark for recalls. Huang was previously targeted by the KMT for his support of gay marriage when he was chair of the NPP, a recall campaign that he barely survived. The KMT has framed its push to raise recall barriers as intended to prevent “revenge recalls” in Taiwan, however.
In the meantime, Taiwanese civil society has framed the right to recall as a constitutional right that citizens enjoy and sought to rally the public in its defense. The framing of defending the constitution has become particularly prominent, seeing as the KMT also currently aims to freeze the Constitutional Court to prevent it from overturning the measures the party seeks to pass in the legislature on grounds of unconstitutionality.
It is to be seen how the public responds to the KMT’s actions. It is possible that the TPP backing away from its initial position, to support instituting ID checks but not raising barriers for referendums means that the public opposition to the KMT’s actions has caused it to reevaluate its petition, or this may be another case in which the TPP hopes to distinguish its political identity from the KMT in some small measure.