Brian Hioeby Brian Hioe
語言:
English
Photo Credit: Eric Chu/Facebook
THE SECOND AND FINAL round of recalls took place across Taiwan today, with seven KMT legislators facing recall. Likewise, a national referendum on the issue of whether to extend the lifespan of the Ma-anshan nuclear reactor took place.
The seven KMT legislators up for recall were Luo Ming-tsai, Lin Tsu-ming, Yen Kuan-heng, Yang Chiung-ying, Johnny Chiang, Ma Wen-chun, and Yu Hao. Consequently, the legislators who were facing recall were spread across New Taipei, Hsinchu, Taichung, and Nantou.
The results of the recall were clear relatively quickly, in that all KMT legislators survived the recall. To this extent, the referendum on the Ma-anshan nuclear reactor went in favor of extending the lifespan of the reactor. The reactor is currently in the decommissioning process, after reaching the end of its 40-year lifespan earlier this year.
The outcome was expected ahead of time, given the defeat of the first wave of recalls last month. In the first wave of recall voting, 24 legislators faced recall. It was likely a surprise to both parties that no legislators were recalled, in that votes against the recall outnumbered votes for the recall in all cases. A number of recall votes also did not meet the benchmarks necessary to be binding. This was also the case this time.
Given the significant momentum ahead of the July recall vote, in the wake of the “Great Recall Movement” and the Bluebird Movement last year, if all recalls in July failed, it was unlikely that recalls today would pass.
It was more of a mystery as to which direction the vote on extending the lifespan of the Ma-anshan reactor would go. But the DPP did not take an official stance on the referendum either, contributing to the expectation that it would pass. More than 3.5 million voted in favor of extending the lifespan of the Ma-anshan reactor, while over 1.5 million voted against it. Though votes are still being counted as of press time, it is probable that the referendum will not meet the benchmark to be binding.
If the referendum had passed, the Ma-anshan reactor would have needed to undergo a recommissioning process, which would have taken several years. Moreover, given Taiwan’s limited fuel rod storage capacity, the reactor would have only been operational for less than a decade. Had the KMT seriously intended to maintain the reactor’s operation, they could have sought to extend its lifespan earlier, before the decommissioning process began. In this sense, the referendum was only for the sake of driving up turnout for the recall vote today.
Overall, then, the outcome of the recall and referendum was a victory for the KMT, reflecting the failure of the Great Recall Movement. The DPP is expected to reshuffle its cabinet after voting today, to put the party on a new footing with the public, and in preparation for elections next year.
After the initial round of voting took place in July, there was anger from recall organizers toward the DPP, with the view that the DPP did not do enough to back the recalls. As the recalls were organized by civil society groups emergent after last year’s Bluebird Movement, the DPP sought to avoid becoming too involved in recall organizing, to avoid allegations from the KMT that the recalls were DPP-organized and sought to overthrow the mechanisms of Taiwanese democracy. It is to be seen if there is another round of blame after today’s defeat.
In retrospect, the defeat of the recalls may have reflected that the districts in which voting took place swung pan-Blue last election. It may not be so surprising that they voted pan-Blue again. To this extent, civil society groups that organized recalls leaned mostly into messaging about cross-strait issues, which may not have appealed to swing voters in these areas.
Indeed, recalls on this scale were a previously untested mechanism in Taiwanese democracy, in that though there had been past recalls, they never took place as part of an attempt to recall all legislators of a specific political party. Though recalls against legislators that incur significant public anger may continue, it is unlikely that recalls on such a scale will be attempted again. Recalls do not indicate what the result of elections will be, in which voters are asked to choose between which is the more appealing of two candidates, and in which domestic policy considerations will play a greater role.
It is to be seen what occurs next with the KMT, then, which may resume its offensives against the DPP in the legislature with the view that its victory means it has a strong mandate. This is not the case, again, seeing as recalls are very different from elections, but it is possible that this is how the KMT will interpret the recall results. The KMT’s upcoming chair elections will also be hotly watched, in consideration of that chair elections will play a role in deciding who the KMT’s 2028 presidential candidate will be.