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


SBS Australia
an hour ago
- SBS Australia
Albanese government moves ahead with election pledge to cap prescription medicines to $25
The Albanese government says it will introduce legislation this week to cap the cost of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) prescriptions to $25, down from $31.60 from next year. It means the cost of medicines on the PBS could be reduced by over 20 per cent from 1 January, 2026. Pensioners and concession cardholders will continue to pay just $7.70 for their prescriptions until at least 2030. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said it builds on a pledge for cost of living relief. "The size of your bank balance shouldn't determine the quality of your healthcare," he said. Health Minister Mark Butler said the general patients medicines haven't been this cheap since 2004. In 2024, Australia exported roughly $2.1 billion of medicinal and pharmaceutical products to the United States, Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows. If the US were to put tariffs on medicinal exports, this could make Australian drugs more expensive. Driving down demand could also force manufacturers to move overseas, where the costs of operations are cheaper. The party promised an $8.5 billion boost aimed at strengthening the system and incentivising more clinics to bulk bill. This included $3.5 billion in direct incentives to GPs and medical centres, and $400 million for training more nurses and doctors in primary care settings, outlined in the March federal budget .


7NEWS
2 hours ago
- 7NEWS
Albanese government pushes forward with prescription medicine cap at $25
Medicines listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) will be capped at $25 per prescription from the start of 2026, down from the current $31.60, with the Albanese government to introduce laws confirming the changes this week. The major federal election promise will also see the price of PBS scripts frozen at its current level of $7.70 for pensioners until 2030. The changes will cost taxpayers $200 million per year, but are likely to be popular with voters. The Coalition matched the policy during the election and is likely to see the bill pass through parliament relatively quickly. However, Labor used the policy during the federal campaign in April and May to run a scare campaign accusing Peter Dutton and the Opposition of being 'Trump-Lite' and wanting a US style health system. The Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, says: 'The size of your bank balance shouldn't determine the quality of your healthcare'. 'We said we would make cheaper medicines even cheaper - that is exactly what we are doing,' Albanese said. 'This is another example of cost of living relief that helps every Australian. The Health Minister, Mark Butler, says the last time PBS medicines cost no more than $25 was 2004 – more than 20 years ago. 'The Albanese Government has been focused on delivering cheaper medicines for Australians,' Butler said. 'Cheaper medicines are good for the hip pocket and good for your health.' The Albanese Government has started the first two sitting weeks of its second term trying to keep the focus on its election promises. Last week it introduced bills to cut HECS debt by 20 percent, entrench penalty rates in workplace agreements, and safety reforms for the childcare sector.

ABC News
3 hours ago
- ABC News
The US and China will go head-to-head in the battle to bring about artificial general intelligence
Artificial intelligence is no longer just a race among a group of over-valued American tech companies and over-yachted billionaires. It's still that, but it's now also part of the great contest between the US and China. That means it's less about profits and return on investment, and more about geopolitics — national machismo, security and defence. It also means the coming transition from AI to AGI or artificial general intelligence — where machines theoretically surpass human intelligence — will be brought forward and will be much more significant for the world. It will be as momentous as the discovery of nuclear fission in 1938, which led to the development of nuclear weapons and the United States's first atom bomb test in July 1945, followed a month later by the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and then four years later by the Soviet Union's first test, followed by 30 years of Cold War. It's not clear which of the US or China will get to AGI first, but the loser won't be four years behind and won't be relying on slow pre-Internet espionage as the Soviets had to. But it looks like the US is playing catch-up: last week China's Unitree Robotics began selling a humanoid robot with artificial intelligence, including voice and image recognition, for just US$5,900, the first in what's expected to be a flood of well-priced AI machines for both the home and workplace (this one doesn't look like it can do the dishes yet, but it won't be long). US President Donald Trump recently launched "AI Action Day". The plan that he presented started with these words: "The United States is in a race to achieve global dominance in artificial intelligence (AI)." Note: dominance, not leadership, and not US companies, but "the United States". Next sentence: "Whoever has the largest AI ecosystem will set global AI standards and reap broad economic and military benefits." Note: "military". Yes, AGI will transform warfare, as nuclear weapons did 80 years ago. The Chinese government had much the same idea as Trump exactly eight years ago. Its AI plan was released on July 20, 2017, with the following ambition: "By 2030, China's AI theories, technologies, and applications should achieve world-leading levels, making China the world's primary AI innovation centre". Meanwhile, in the US, a company called Nvidia had just discovered that the chips it was making for video games could work nicely for artificial intelligence. In July 2017, at the same time as the Chinese government was launching its AI strategy, Nvidia and the Chinese equivalent of Google, Baidu, announced a partnership in which Baidu would use Nvidia's chips for AI, and the American company would get access to the Chinese market. On that day in 2017, Nvidia was worth a pretty handy $US100 billion ($152 billion); today it's worth $US4.2 trillion and is the world's most valuable company, after a three-year frenzy that has seen its share price increase 14-fold. The Nvidia-Baidu partnership doesn't seem to have been formally terminated, but it petered out a couple of years ago, around the same time as the US non-profit outfit OpenAI launched ChatGPT, kicking off the next era of AI. Since then, the US government under Joe Biden has been mainly concerned with regulating AI, partly prompted by the "Statement on AI Risk", published on May 30, 2023, by hundreds of AI experts, who declared: "Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war." But now, with Donald Trump, it's no more regulation — none (not that those worried AI experts in 2023 stopped what they were doing or even slowed the development of AI at breakneck speed, as if the need for regulations and the "risk of extinction" didn't exist). The first part of the Trump administration's AI plan involves "removing red tape and onerous regulation". The second part instructs the National Institute of Standards and Technology to "eliminate references to misinformation, diversity, equity, and inclusion, and climate change", and as he signed the executive order on stage at the Mellon Auditorium, Trump said they would be removing "woke Marxist lunacy in the AI models. Once and for all, we are getting rid of woke. OK?" You've got to get your priorities in the right order: deregulation comes before de-woking, but only just. What the US plan does NOT involve is government money, but there is plenty of that available in Silicon Valley and on Wall Street, so no need for the government to abandon tax cuts for the billionaires. Estimates of how much has been spent developing AI by the big US tech companies range from $US800 billion to $US1 trillion, and there is no sign of that slowing. If anything, it's speeding up as the companies approach the much more profitable (they think) singularity of AGI. The Chinese government, meanwhile, is estimated to have spent about $US150 billion developing its AI industry. It was done more cheaply because they were able to use open-source software from the US, a lot of it from OpenAI. No espionage required. Earlier this year, a Chinese company named DeepSeek galvanised the AI world and the US government by releasing an AI model called R1, which is as good as the American ones, much cheaper, and open source. Another Chinese company, Moonshot AI, has released another, better, open-source model called Kimi K2, capable of autonomously doing complex tasks, prompting some commentators to call it another DeepSeek moment, and a significant step towards AGI. But now, as standard AI starts to infiltrate every corner of life and become an explicit source of geopolitical competition between America and China, the question on the minds of everyone involved in the industry is, when will AGI happen? And when (not if) it does happen, what will that mean? For the first question, I asked ChatGPT. It replied: "My best evidence-based guess — based on current trends, expert forecasts, and technical bottlenecks — is that a true AGI tipping point could plausibly occur sometime between 2030 and 2040, but not before 2027, and quite possibly not until 2050 or later." So, between five and 15 years — not long. What will it mean? Plenty, both good and not good. Human-level cognition and autonomy in machines will be profoundly disruptive to humanity. The risks are obvious: the elimination of white-collar jobs leading to high levels of permanent unemployment, collapse of aggregate demand, along with inflation and interest rates, more effective cyber-attacks, autonomous weapons, more sophisticated propaganda and surveillance. And then there's that thing they were warning about in May 2023 — extinction. If the machines are smarter and better-informed than us, can we control them? What if they do to us what we did to the Neanderthals? The benefits are potentially enormous as well: better, more personalised healthcare, an exponential acceleration in science and research, improved productivity, less mundane work, and more leisure. That's why the Productivity Commission's overview for its "five pillars" report in preparation for the productivity roundtable in two weeks says its recommendations will "aim to give people and businesses the confidence and certainty they need to safely adopt powerful new AI tools," although it doesn't specifically talk about AGI. The 25 great and good at the roundtable will probably talk about that for half an hour before getting back to arguing about tax and human industrial relations. Alan Kohler is a finance presenter and columnist on ABC News, and he also writes for Intelligent Investor.