On July 26th, the results of the first round of recall voting in Taiwan were announced, with no opposition party legislators being recalled. Both major political parties in Taiwan acknowledged the election results, with observers admiring the maturity of democracy in Taiwan. In mainland China, some individuals highly focused on the Taiwan recall, anonymously expressing views that differ from the official stance of the Chinese Communist Party.
After the completion of voting and ballot counting on the 26th, none of the 24 recall cases involving legislators or the recall case of the mayor of Hsinchu, Ko Wen-je, were successful. The second round of voting for the remaining 7 recall cases will take place on August 23rd, along with a referendum on restarting the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant.
The backdrop of this large-scale recall effort was a move by Taiwanese civic groups against the expansion of parliamentary power led by pro-Beijing legislators, triggering the recall initiative. The first wave aimed at 24 Kuomintang (KMT) legislators and Ko Wen-je saw voting and ballot counting on July 26th. If the KMT loses six legislative seats in this recall, and they are all replaced by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidates in by-elections, the DPP may have the opportunity to gain a majority in the parliament, reclaiming dominance.
Some interviewed Taiwanese experts had previously told Epoch Times that the fundamental motivation behind the recalls by Taiwanese citizens is to oppose the infiltration of Taiwan by the Chinese Communist Party. They pointed out that after the 2024 legislative elections, a “small opposition, big ruling party” situation emerged in the parliament.
A woman named Sheng Lian (pseudonym) who follows social trends in Henan expressed to Epoch Times that the recall vote in Taiwan is also closely monitored by people in mainland China. Despite significant differences in the political systems of Taiwan and China, comparing how these two handle public opinion remains thought-provoking. In Taiwan, citizens can directly influence the fate of political figures through voting, reflecting the effectiveness of the democratic system. In contrast, while China’s National People’s Congress system theoretically represents public opinions, in practice, representatives often lack genuine feedback from the people.
In recent years in mainland China, protest movements like the 2022 Beijing Sito Bridge incident openly called for the recall of Xi Jinping from party and state positions and for the direct election of the President, with similar sentiments also emerging later.
Sheng Lian noted that the voices calling for Xi Jinping’s removal also reflect the dissatisfaction of some people with the current state of affairs and their desire for change, despite the substantial risks involved in expressing such views.
She believes that the comparison between Taiwan and mainland China often prompts reflection, especially within the framework of democracy and freedom. Taiwan’s free elections, freedom of speech, and development of civil society stand in stark contrast to the situation in mainland China, potentially shocking or awakening many individuals. Such comparisons sometimes encourage citizens in mainland China to ponder their own rights and the future of society.
Concerning the recall, people around Sheng Lian have diverse opinions, but “most of the people around me support this recall.”
A Beijing lawyer named Huang Sheng (pseudonym) told Epoch Times that the large-scale recall in Taiwan is a demonstration of Taiwanese democracy, a condition not yet present in mainland China. He remarked that Taiwan is currently experiencing severe infiltration by the Chinese Communist Party. “Why implement a large-scale recall? Are these legislators simply following the Communist Party’s lead? If the recall doesn’t happen now, I estimate that Taiwan will end up like Hong Kong if the people do not cherish their democratic way of life, they might fall prey to united front tactics.”
Regarding the failure of the first round of recalls in Taiwan, Feng Chongyi, Associate Professor at the University of Technology Sydney, stated that these constituencies are KMT strongholds, making it very difficult, legally, to gather enough votes for a successful recall.
Despite serious divisions between Taiwan’s two major political parties, the election process on the 26th proceeded in an orderly and peaceful manner. Over half of the 6.8 million eligible voters participated in the vote.
Renowned Hong Kong business tycoon Yuan Gongyi expressed to Epoch Times that even though the recalls were unsuccessful, it was a highly contested referendum by both sides. “This is a kind of referendum on recalling, no matter what, this is the will of the people.”
“Allowing the Communist Party to infiltrate is not good. People are experimenting and trying different methods to deal with the Communist Party, how to deal with external enemies. We are also doing the same thing in Hong Kong,” he added.
Yue Zongji, former Dean of the Political Warfare College at National Defense University, told Epoch Times that the severity of the Chinese Communist Party’s infiltration into Taiwan, including the spread of false information and cultural propaganda forces, far exceeds the understanding of the recalled group and the general public. The current DPP government in Taiwan must confront this challenge posed by the vast network of false information and infiltration by the CCP.
Cao Xingcheng, one of the leaders of the recall effort and founder of Lian Electric, stated after the voting results were announced that, “We believe that, with our actions, Taiwan will one day break free from the entanglement of the Chinese Communist Party, which disregards justice and fairness, and will forever remain a land of freedom and courage.”
Regarding the unsuccessful recalls in the first wave, scholars cited by Central News Agency indicated that the KMT might adopt a scorched-earth policy towards the Lai government. President Lai Ching-te could adopt a more conciliatory approach to engage in political negotiations and cross-party dialogues, and the election results do not authorize a pro-China stance. The anti-communist discourse within the Green Camp should also be more refined, moving away from blanket anti-communist rhetoric.