Taiwan opposition parliamentarians survive major recall election
The island's defence capabilities have also been front-of-mind for some Taiwanese people and parliamentarians during a domestic political stoush that came to a head on Saturday.
For several months now, civil society groups in Taiwan have been campaigning to unseat 24 parliamentarians they considered to be too pro-China.
But their efforts to expel the politicians, using a recall motion, have failed.
So, what does that mean for Taiwan?
Taiwan, a democratic self-governing island of 23 million people, has a political system that allows voters to remove their elected representatives before the end of their term through a legal process known as a recall.
But recalls are rare, and had never been used on this scale before.
Grassroots organisations behind this unprecedented mass recall campaign wanted to unseat opposition party parliamentarians they viewed as pro-Beijing.
The campaigners believed these parliamentarians had been using their majority to block the democratically aligned Taiwan president's agenda, impacting government budgets and crucially, defence programs, which consequently created risks for Taiwan's security.
"The opposition lawmakers have paralysed the government's ability to start the process of enhancing defence reforms and capabilities that Taiwan desperately needs in order to deter China from continuing to enhance military pressure on Taiwan," said William Yang, International Crisis Group's senior analyst for North-East Asia.
The opposition parliamentarians had denied these accusations.
Beijing has repeatedly insisted that Taiwan will one day become a part of China, refusing to rule out the use of force to achieve that.
US intelligence suggests China's President Xi Jinping wants his military ready for a potential invasion by 2027.
All recall votes against the 24 opposition party members from the Kuomintang (KMT) were rejected, according to Taiwan's Central Election Commission.
It means the current makeup of Taiwan's parliament will remain the same.
"The result shows the majority of the Taiwanese people still prefer the outcome from the Taiwanese election delivered in 2024," explained Mr Yang.
The opposition party will continue to have a majority in the legislature, and the ruling party, President Lai Ching-te's Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), will continue to control the executive branch of government.
Mr Yang described the results as a "double-edged sword".
"On the one hand, the opposition party could feel that they have the momentum behind them, so they will try to make a way to push the government to provide more leverage and concessions," he said.
"But at the same time, the opposition could also feel the heat in the way that they will be more cautious when it comes to blocking or stopping the government's agenda so that they won't face similar recall measures in the future."
KMT chairman Eric Chu thanked Taiwan's voters and called for President Lai to apologise and reflect on his governance.
"One should not lose the elections and then call for malicious recalls. One should not seek one-party dominance and destroy democracy," he told a press briefing in Taipei.
"Most importantly, the people of Taiwan chose stability and chose a government that gets things done, rather than political infighting."
Wu Szu-yao, secretary general of the DPP's legislative caucus, said the party respected the voters' decision with pleasure, adding the result would only strengthen the DPP's "anti-communist and pro-Taiwan" stance.
"This time we saw China was trying everything it could to intervene," she told reporters at party headquarters in Taipei, pointing to Chinese military pressure and a disinformation campaign.
"We must be more vigilant against their possible malicious intentions toward Taiwan."
The groups seeking the recalls said theirs was an "anti-communist" movement, accusing the KMT of selling out Taiwan by sending lawmakers to China, not supporting defence spending and bringing chaos to parliament.
Voters like Mr Hsu told the ABC the recall campaign had created a divided society, and political polarisation in Taiwan had become "extreme."
He hoped for a return to normalcy after the recall vote result.
"I hope everyone on this island can live happily, with a thriving economy, instead of being caught up in constant infighting."
Jennifer Chang said she hoped that both sides of the political spectrum could find some common ground.
"I think everyone should speak out and listen more," she said.
Ms Liang, 60, believed people in Taiwan were tolerant.
"They're open to different opinions and treat each other with respect. That's something I really value about Taiwan."
Reuters
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Sky News AU
27 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Labor recognising Palestinian statehood would be a ‘mistake'
The Australian's Foreign Editor Greg Sheridan discusses Prime Minister Anthony Albanese walking both sides of the street on Gaza and Palestinian statehood. 'I think you have to view this all through the lens of domestic politics and especially managing the left and managing the Labor Party,' Mr Sheridan told Sky News host James Macpherson. 'The current worry the government has of not having another bit of trouble with the Trump administration, I think, recognising a Palestinian state would be a mistake.'

Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
‘Innocent life matters': The photographs of children that captured the world's conscience
Warning: Graphic content The photograph of an emaciated child broke Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's heart. 'For anyone with any sense of humanity, you have to be moved by that, and you have to acknowledge that every innocent life matters, whether it be Israeli or Palestinian,' Albanese said. 'A one-year-old boy is not a Hamas fighter, and the civilian casualties and death in Gaza is completely unacceptable,' he told ABC's Insiders on Sunday. 'That boy isn't challenging Israel's right to existence, and nor are the many who continue to suffer from the unavailability of food and water.' The image of Muhammad Zakariya Ayyoub al-Matouq being cradled by his mother Hedaya al-Muta'wi, captured on July 21 and distributed by the photographic network Getty, evoked previous pictures that shocked the world. There is the photograph of Phan Thi Kim Phuc running from a napalm attack in 1972 during the Vietnam War, Steve McCurry's portrait of Afghan refugee Sharbat Gula in 1984, and a haunting image of a vulture stalking a Sudanese child amid widespread famine in 1993. In each case, the ethics behind the photograph have become disputed. Was the image exploitative? Should the photographer have intervened? What toll did it take on the individual who became a symbol for wider suffering? The Israeli embassy in Australia went further on Monday. Deputy head of mission, Amir Meron, told journalists that there was no starvation in Gaza and that 'false pictures' of the situation in the territory were spreading. 'This is a false campaign that is being [led] by Hamas, taking advantage of sick children in order to show a false claim and false presentation of hunger and starvation in the Gaza strip,' Meron said, without specifically referring to the image of al-Matouq.

The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
‘Innocent life matters': The photographs of children that captured the world's conscience
Warning: Graphic content The photograph of an emaciated child broke Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's heart. 'For anyone with any sense of humanity, you have to be moved by that, and you have to acknowledge that every innocent life matters, whether it be Israeli or Palestinian,' Albanese said. 'A one-year-old boy is not a Hamas fighter, and the civilian casualties and death in Gaza is completely unacceptable,' he told ABC's Insiders on Sunday. 'That boy isn't challenging Israel's right to existence, and nor are the many who continue to suffer from the unavailability of food and water.' The image of Muhammad Zakariya Ayyoub al-Matouq being cradled by his mother Hedaya al-Muta'wi, captured on July 21 and distributed by the photographic network Getty, evoked previous pictures that shocked the world. There is the photograph of Phan Thi Kim Phuc running from a napalm attack in 1972 during the Vietnam War, Steve McCurry's portrait of Afghan refugee Sharbat Gula in 1984, and a haunting image of a vulture stalking a Sudanese child amid widespread famine in 1993. In each case, the ethics behind the photograph have become disputed. Was the image exploitative? Should the photographer have intervened? What toll did it take on the individual who became a symbol for wider suffering? The Israeli embassy in Australia went further on Monday. Deputy head of mission, Amir Meron, told journalists that there was no starvation in Gaza and that 'false pictures' of the situation in the territory were spreading. 'This is a false campaign that is being [led] by Hamas, taking advantage of sick children in order to show a false claim and false presentation of hunger and starvation in the Gaza strip,' Meron said, without specifically referring to the image of al-Matouq.