Political scientists are generally agreed that various forms of “direct democracy” — ballot initiatives, referendums, and recall elections — which sidestep elected representatives and take controversial issues directly to the polls are inimical to the proper functioning of representative democracy. Initially utilized as a means of advancing constitutional rights, this seemingly well-intentioned way of giving the public a direct voice has lent itself to abuse as a political wrecking ball aimed at hammering the incumbent administration.
An ugly manifestation of such abuse was on display in Hong Kong in 2009 through May 2010. Two political groups bent on seizing power from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government, the League of Social Democrats and the Civic Party, both of which are now defunct, organized the collective resignations of legislators serving in all five electoral regions to press for the abolition of functional constituencies and the implementation of so-called “true universal suffrage-based elections”. The by-elections held to fill the vacant seats met with such a tepid public response that only 17.1 percent of voters turned out to vote, a record low. The campaign to coerce the government through leveraging the masses fizzled out as soon as the votes were tallied.
An even more shameful attempt to use mass elections to stifle the opposition occurred in Taiwan in late July. Lai Ching-te, the leader of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), was elected leader of the island in January 2024, but with only 40 percent of the votes cast, the lowest percentage won by the ruling party on the island for 20 years. Worse still, in the “legislative yuan” elections that took place in parallel, the DPP won only 51 seats out of a total of 113. Outmaneuvered by a robust coalition of the Kuomintang (KMT), which has 52 seats, and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), which holds eight seats, Lai tried to break out of his embattled position by going after his political rivals with relentless but dubious criminal prosecutions.
As the incarceration of TPP leader Dr Ko Wen-je and suspension of Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao Hung-an, a former TPP member, on alleged corruption charges were inadequate to hand Lai the slimmest of majorities in the “legislative yuan”, the DPP recoursed to Taiwan’s “Public Officials Election and Recall Act” to launch mass recall elections against 24 KMT legislators and the suspended mayor of Hsinchu, Ann Kao, in phase one of the recall campaign, and another seven KMT legislators in phase two. The DPP deployed a large number of “pan-green” grassroots organizations, plus the “Bluebird Movement”, a youth-led scion of the DPP, to spearhead the campaign. The seemingly innocuous “Bluebird Action” group, whose name rhymed with qing niao (meaning “cleanse all” of the “impurities” of the “legislative yuan”), was the key player in the cybercampaign. Despite pouring substantial resources into the recall campaign, the recall was vetoed in all 25 constituencies on July 26. The statutory threshold of 25 percent of favorable votes among all eligible voters was not reached in any of them, making the recall campaign a monumental failure.
US trade negotiators were “squeezing Taiwan like a lemon”. More hardball tactics from the US are in the cards, as the region is now seen as a useless chess piece in the strategically far more consequential US-China negotiations. ... Lai can expect more bullying from America. The days of a Taiwan leader who has done little to advance the welfare of the people or salvage its sagging economy are bound to be numbered
The dismal outcomes do not bode well for the phase two recall elections, slated for Aug 23.
The only recall election launched by the KMT against Chen Yu-ling, a Nantou county councilor from the DPP, was also vetoed on July 13. The low turnout of voters in these recall elections speaks volumes about Taiwan residents’ disenchantment with electoral campaigns mobilized by political parties to serve their self-interested political ends. The noisy but hollow “defend Taiwan from the mainland” slogans saw the campaigners fall flat on their faces.
Enfeebled by the great failure of his recall movement, Lai was dealt a further blow when the United States denied him transit through New York en route to Central and South America, the first time a Taiwan leader has been denied a US stopover in 20 years. As a result, Lai had to cancel his planned visit. Occurring on the eve of trade talks between Beijing and Washington in Stockholm, the cancellation was widely seen as a US concession in exchange for a more favorable overall deal with Beijing.
Lai suffered a further major setback when US President Donald Trump signed an executive order on July 31 imposing a 20 percent tariff on all goods from Taiwan. While Taiwan’s 20 percent tariff rate is lower than the 32 percent Trump announced on April 2, and on par with the rate for low-tech exporters like Vietnam, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, it is higher than the 15 percent rate for Taiwan’s high-tech rivals Japan and the Republic of Korea. Taiwan faced additional pressures from the US on market access, investments in the US, and the prospect of possible higher tariffs on “strategic imports” that threaten the US’ national security. Under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, up to 80 percent of Taiwan’s exports to the US could be caught by the wide-ranging provisions of Section 232, if investigations find these exports harmful to the US’ national security interests.
As the US political digital journal Politico reported, quoting anonymous sources, US trade negotiators were “squeezing Taiwan like a lemon”. More hardball tactics from the US are in the cards, as the region is now seen as a useless chess piece in the strategically far more consequential US-China negotiations. Furthermore, Taiwan is losing its “silicon shield” as TSMC, the world’s largest and most advanced semiconductor contractor, is stepping up its investments and production of silicon chips in the US. With few cards to play, Lai can expect more bullying from America. The days of a Taiwan leader who has done little to advance the welfare of the people or salvage its sagging economy are bound to be numbered.
The author is convenor of the Executive Council and a legislator.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
