Commentary: Watch Han’s Recall Backfire
China Times, June 6, 2020
Kaohsiung Mayor Han Kuo-yu lost the recall election on June 6. Aside from Han personally, if we assess the results, this retaliatory mobilization arose from the opposition between the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the opposition Kuomintang (KMT), the politicization of the state apparatus caused by administrative non-neutrality, as well as the societal and political problems caused by the Civil Servants Election and Recall Act. If these issues are not solved, although the victim today is Han, it is difficult to guarantee in the future that the same will not happen to the DPP.
Anti-Han groups claim that regardless of the outcome of the recall vote, it is victory for the people of Kaohsiung. However, the truth might be the exact opposite.
First of all, the recall of Mayor Han polarizes the vicious fighting between the KMT and DPP even more. At the beginning of the year, President Tsai Ing-wen said in her re-election victory speech that she would like to make peace and form mutual understanding with Han and will work together regardless of political stance. However, three days before the recall voting took place, Tsai ordered the DPP as chairwoman to mobilize and support the recall of Han. This extreme cut-throat approach will definitely further tear apart the already fragile trust between the ruling and opposition parties.
Next, the executive branch of government has become increasingly partisan. In this recall vote, from the Central Election Commission’s partisan talk to Minister of Health and Welfare Chen Shih-chung’s expressing support for pandemic-quarantined citizens to participate in the recall election, from the Taiwan High Speed Rail giving away free tickets to young people to return home and vote to the Ministry of Justice tacitly permitting anti-Han groups to use the ministry logo, what are supposed to be neutral executive ministries are now servicing a specific political party dictated by ideology. This is definitely a disaster for Taiwan.
Lastly, the normalization of recall votes. The current Civil Servants Election and Recall Act states the conditions for the passing of a deposition is that if the approval is higher than disapproval, and if the number of votes exceeds a quarter of the total electorate. This extremely low threshold leaves plenty of room for review.
Taking the recall voting of Han as an example, according to the criteria, as long as 574,000 votes in favor of the deposition, the 892,000 votes citizens made for Han back in 2018 can be overturned. Is this consistent with the proportionality principle that every vote should be considered equal? This system will undoubtedly make the recall act an easy revenge tool for future defeated election camps. Even if one knows that he cannot pass the threshold, a losing candidate may still use the recall process as a legitimate democratic tool to harass the election winner.
Regardless of political stance, Taiwanese society must ponder, if Taiwan cannot withstand the side effects resulting from Civil Servants Election and Recall Act, then it becomes imperative to review the holes in the system.