Call for Petition to recall a Legislator, Taipei
In Taiwan, elections and recall mechanisms are two sides of the same coin. Whether it concerns elected representatives or heads of local governments, their time in office is subject to constant scrutiny by the electorate. The act of voting someone into office does not grant them unconditional democratic legitimacy for the entirety of their term. Should an elected official act in ways that violate the will or expectations of the voters during their tenure, they may be removed from office through a recall initiated by the electorate.
I. Historical Development and Legal Reforms of Taiwan’s Recall System
According to Article 17 of the Constitution of the Republic of China (Taiwan), the people have the rights of election, recall, initiative, and referendum. The right to recall stands as a necessary counterpart to the right to vote. The framers of the Constitution envisioned that if elected representatives or officials fail to uphold the will of the people, they have fundamentally deviated from the core principles of representative democracy. In such circumstances, voters must be empowered to remove those who no longer act in accordance with the public will, thereby preserving the essence of democratic governance.
In practice, however, Taiwan has faced significant challenges in implementing this ideal. In the early years following the relocation of the Republic of China government to Taiwan, authoritarian rule prevailed under the Temporary Provisions Effective During the Period of National Mobilization for Suppression of the Communist Rebellion and the imposition of martial law. As a result, constitutional democracy remained largely suspended. Although elections for local representatives were gradually introduced over time, these were accompanied by numerous restrictions. It was only after the lifting of martial law and the termination of the Temporary Provisions that democratic elections began to take root more comprehensively.
From a legal perspective, the institutional framework for recall was not formalized until 1980 with the enactment of the Public Officials Election and Recall Act, which established the basic structure for both central and local recall mechanisms. The regulations concerning the recall of the President and Vice President were introduced even later, with the promulgation of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Election and Recall Act in 1995.
Initially, the threshold for a successful recall required not only that the number of votes in favor of recall exceeded those against but also that a minimum voter turnout was met. For members of the National Assembly, legislators, provincial and municipal councilors, county and city councilors, and township representatives, at least one-third of registered voters in the original electoral district had to participate in the recall vote. For county and city mayors, township mayors, and village or borough chiefs, the required turnout was even higher, set at more than half of registered voters.
In 1994, the law was amended to simplify and standardize the recall threshold, irrespective of the office held. A recall would succeed if voter turnout reached at least half of the registered electorate in the original district, and the votes in favor exceeded half of the valid ballots cast.
The most significant reform came in 2016, when the Public Officials Election and Recall Act was amended to lower the recall threshold. The new requirement stipulates that a recall succeeds if the number of votes in favor reaches at least one-quarter of the registered electorate. The rationale behind this amendment was that the previously applicable “double-half threshold” had effectively deprived the people of their constitutional right to recall elected officials.
II. Past Cases of Recall in Taiwan
In fact, recall initiatives have been a recurring feature in Taiwan’s political history. As early as the 1950s and 1960s, there were documented cases of local representatives, such as township and town council members, being removed from office through recall. Even during the presidency of Mr. Chen Shui-bian (2000–2008), multiple recall proposals were brought against him by the Legislative Yuan, though none succeeded.
Following the 2016 amendment to Taiwan’s recall legislation, the island witnessed a wave of recall movements targeting various elected officials. Among those who faced recall proposals were Han Kuo-yu, the former mayor of Kaohsiung and current President of the Legislative Yuan; Huang Kuo-chang, former legislator for the New Power Party and now chairman of the Taiwan People’s Party; legislators Chen Po-wei and Freddy Lim; Taoyuan City Councilor Wang Hao-yu; and Kaohsiung City Councilor Huang Jie.
The most high-profile case was that of Han Kuo-yu. Shortly after his election as mayor of Kaohsiung, he accepted the Kuomintang’s nomination to run for president, sparking widespread public anger over what many perceived as his abandonment of mayoral duties. After his unsuccessful presidential bid, he was recalled by Kaohsiung voters, becoming the first directly elected local government head in Taiwan to be removed from office through a recall.
Legislator Chen Po-wei was also ousted after facing criticism for his perceived detachment from public opinion, controversial statements in parliament, and alleged aggressive behavior. Similarly, Taoyuan City Councilor Wang Hao-yu was recalled amid accusations that he neglected local affairs in favor of constant national political commentary and the dissemination of misinformation online.
III. Background and Development of the “Mass Recall” Movement
Following Taiwan’s 2024 presidential and legislative elections, the Legislative Yuan entered a phase of political fragmentation, with no party holding an absolute majority. The cooperation between the Kuomintang (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) effectively ended the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) eight-year period of “complete governance,” during which it controlled both the executive and legislative branches. Taiwan thus shifted to a “minority government” model, where the ruling party and the parliamentary majority belong to different political camps.
This political realignment has triggered a series of intense conflicts, including the passage of highly controversial legislation in the Legislative Yuan, such as amendments to the Law Governing the Legislative Yuan’s Exercise of Powers, the Public Officials Election and Recall Act, the Fiscal Revenue and Expenditure Division Act, and the Constitutional Court Procedure Act, alongside budgetary disputes and the rejection of the president’s nominations for Grand Justices. Amid this turbulent environment, many legislators’ disorderly and unprofessional behavior has fueled public discontent, sparking a wave of recall initiatives targeting unfit lawmakers.
Under Taiwan’s current legal framework, only district-elected legislators can be recalled; legislators elected through proportional party lists are exempt from such procedures. To initiate a recall, voters in the legislator’s constituency must first gather signatures from at least 1% of eligible voters (the first-stage petition). If successful, the second stage requires signatures from at least 10% of registered voters (the second-stage petition). Finally, a recall vote is held, and the recall passes if the number of votes in favor exceeds those against, and the total number of favorable votes reaches at least 25% of eligible voters in the district.
Campaign Headquarters for the Recall of a Legislator, Taipei
It is evident that the primary targets of the current “mass recall” movement are KMT legislators. In addition to disputes over legislative positions, individual misconduct has further fueled recall efforts. For instance, Taipei legislator Hsu Chiao-hsin has drawn criticism for inappropriate behavior in the Legislative Yuan, including playing the recorder and making obscene gestures toward other lawmakers. Moreover, the quality of her constituency services has reportedly declined compared to her predecessor, sparking dissatisfaction among conservative voters in her district.
Similarly, New Taipei City legislator Yeh Yuan-chih has faced public backlash for live-streaming during confidential legislative sessions, mistreating his staff to the point where one subordinate reportedly passed away, neglecting his legislative duties, and frequently appearing on political talk shows to earn extra income: actions that have angered local voters and triggered a recall initiative.
The signature collection process has also encountered significant obstacles. Some businesses that provided space for petition drives were later subjected to inspections and regulatory pressure, raising suspicions of politically motivated retaliation. Beyond domestic efforts, overseas Taiwanese communities have actively supported the recall movement. Taiwanese associations and student organizations across Europe and North America have organized volunteer groups to assist expatriates in completing and mailing recall petitions. In Germany, for example, volunteers are active in cities such as Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Düsseldorf, and Stuttgart, with other cities offering appointments for signing. Online platforms have further amplified the movement, generating widespread and polarized debate.
At the same time, numerous irregularities have emerged during the signature collection process. In response to the mass recall campaign, the KMT has launched its own recall efforts targeting DPP legislators. However, these efforts have been marred by allegations of forged signatures and deceased individuals appearing on petitions. As a result, several organizers and volunteers involved in these recall efforts are under investigation by prosecutors and may face charges for document forgery.
Ultimately, recall proposals have been formally filed against 24 KMT legislators and Hsinchu City Mayor Ann Kao (Kao Hung-An). Voting is scheduled for July 26, 2025, from 8:00 to 16:00, with ballots to be counted immediately after polls close. The official results will be announced by August 1, 2025.
IV. Changes in the Political Landscape and Future Prospects Following the “Mass Recall”
Even if the current recall efforts succeed in removing certain legislators who have lost public support, attention must still be paid to the subsequent political developments. Taking Taipei’s 7th electoral district, represented by Hsu Chiao-hsin, as an example: this district has long been a stronghold for the KMT, with the party holding a clear advantage over DPP. Even if Hsu were to be recalled due to her personal style or failures in constituency service, it would remain highly challenging to fundamentally alter the political landscape through the ensuing by-election. Should the replacement legislator also belong to the KMT, and if the party leadership continues to enforce strict party discipline requiring legislators to vote along party lines, the overall political dynamics may remain largely unchanged.
In contrast, the exercise of the recall right serves as an important corrective mechanism for the behavior of elected officials. In recent years, it has become evident that many public officials have forgotten the fundamental purpose of democratic institutions. The promises made during election campaigns are often neglected once they assume office, and their attitude towards the electorate can become increasingly arrogant, disregarding the democratic principle that ultimate authority rests with the people.
A recent example is the mayor of Keelung, Hsieh Kuo-liang, who faced a recall initiative over accusations of dishonesty, abuse of legal procedures, and disregard for public opinion. Although the recall vote ultimately failed to meet the required threshold, the political pressure he experienced appears to have had an impact, as he has since adopted a noticeably more modest and cautious public posture.
Thus, even if the current wave of recall efforts fails to fundamentally alter the balance of power in the Legislative Yuan or the outcome of legislative deliberations, it may still serve as a crucial reminder to elected officials that they remain subject to public scrutiny. Ultimately, democratic governance must reflect the core principle that sovereignty resides with the people.
V. Conclusion
The Current State and Future Prospects of Taiwan’s Recall System: Striking a Balance Between Democratic Participation and Political Polarization
A review of the historical development and recent application of Taiwan’s recall system reveals that it has become an integral component of the country’s democratic framework. Beyond elections, it provides the electorate with a formal mechanism to scrutinize and hold elected officials accountable. Especially in the context of shifting party dynamics, changes in parliamentary composition, and the growing maturity of civil society, the recall process has evolved from a symbolic institution into a concrete means by which voters can express political discontent.
At the same time, the implementation of the recall system exposes the inherent tensions and dilemmas within a democratic society. On the one hand, the right of recall is an essential tool for public oversight, ensuring that incompetent or unfit officials can be removed from office. On the other hand, when excessively politicized or exploited as a partisan instrument, recall initiatives risk becoming mere extensions of political struggle, deepening social divisions and undermining the legitimacy of democratic institutions themselves.
Looking ahead, the future development of Taiwan’s recall system requires a careful balance between encouraging democratic participation and preventing the escalation of political polarization. From a legal standpoint, continuous evaluation of thresholds and procedural requirements is necessary to ensure that the system remains accessible yet protected from abuse, neither so restrictive that the right of recall becomes meaningless, nor so lax that it degenerates into a tool for short-term political maneuvering. At the same time, civic education and rational public discourse must be strengthened, fostering a more mature understanding of the recall process and cultivating a sense of responsibility among voters. Only through such efforts can the recall system fulfill its intended role: enhancing democratic accountability rather than fueling social fragmentation.
Taiwan’s democratic development has brought the recall system from a symbolic formality under authoritarian rule to an institution with genuine political impact. The challenge now lies in ensuring that this mechanism contributes to the healthy functioning of civil society rather than becoming a catalyst for division: a question that will undoubtedly shape the future of Taiwan’s democratic consolidation.
