CIVICUS discusses Taiwan’s unprecedented citizen-led recall campaign against opposition politicians with Leah Lin, Executive Director and founder of the Asia Citizen Future Association (ACFA), which promotes collaboration between Taiwanese and Southeast Asian civil society, supports civil society and advocates for civic space protections.

A politically divided government emerged from Taiwan’s January 2024 general election, with the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) holding the presidency and the opposition Kuomintang (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) controlling parliament. The KMT-TPP alliance implemented controversial legislative measures and imposed sweeping budget cuts, impacting on civil society working on culture and education. This was followed by a citizen-led initiative to recall 31 KMT parliamentarians, on the basis that the cuts, particularly to broad areas of administrative spending and national defence, undermined national security and the state’s ability to function.

What happened after the January 2024 general election?

The election resulted in a divided government. The DPP’s Lai Ching-te secured the presidency, while the opposition, led by the KMT in alliance with the TPP, captured a majority in the Legislative Yuan, Taiwan’s parliament.

The new KMT-TPP majority quickly moved to pass a series of controversial legislative measures, including expanding parliamentary oversight powers and limiting Constitutional Court independence. This resulted in fierce confrontations between the executive and legislative branches over issues such as control of the national budget, the scope of legislative powers and the confirmation of Constitutional Court judges. Some of these disputes escalated to the point of raising fears of a constitutional crisis.

Meanwhile, the KMT and TPP pushed through amendments to the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures, significantly reducing the central government’s budget by earmarking a much larger portion of tax revenues for local government, much of which the KMT controls. This was followed by sweeping budget cuts.

On 17 January, in the context of a legislative review of the 2025 central government budget, the KMT and TPP majority passed a proposal of budget cuts of 10 per cent to utilities, 60 per cent to special funds, including travel, overseas training and allowances, and complete elimination of special funds for several agencies, including the Executive Yuan, Mainland Affairs Council and ministries of agriculture, digital affairs, the interior, justice and labour, with no reallocation allowed. Military equipment and facilities were cut by three per cent, and media and publicity budgets by 60 per cent, with a mandate to reach an overall three per cent reduction. Budgets for the Department of Gender Equality, Ministry of Culture and Ministry of National Defence were frozen or reduced.

In civil society, organisations working on culture and education were among the most affected because they relied on government grants for their projects. Many human rights organisations, in contrast, have internal rules against accepting government funding, so they haven’t felt such a big financial impact. However, the funding for independent committees, through which the government consults civil society and enables participation in policy discussions, has been directly affected by the budget cuts.

What triggered the recall campaigns and how were they organised?

The first wave of mobilisation against the new parliament’s aggressive measures erupted in May 2024, with the formation of the Blue Bird Movement, led by civil society groups that condemned some of the measures as unconstitutional and anti-democratic.

A second wave of protest by the Blue Bird Movement emerged in December, refuelled by newly introduced anti-recall measures that tightened requirements for recall petitions, including mandatory submission of photocopies of identification cards and harsh penalties for petition-related fraud. Civil society warned that some measures threatened the Constitutional Court’s independence.

In response, Blue Bird groups began organising recall campaigns against KMT legislators, building momentum through nationwide events in early 2025 and eventually targeting 31 KMT politicians and an independent one aligned with the KMT. TPP legislators were exempt because they had been elected via the party list system and thus not subject to recall. Under Taiwan’s mixed electoral system, voters cast two ballots, one for a district representative and another for a political party. While district representatives can be recalled by their constituents, party list legislators cannot be recalled as they represent the country rather than specific constituencies.

In each constituency that targeted KMT legislators, local recall groups launched petition drives. Many of these groups were not established civil society organisations but volunteer networks formed with the sole purpose of pursuing recall campaigns.

What challenges did recall campaigners face?

There were reported incidents of harassment, threats and violence targeting citizen groups involved in collecting signatures for recall petitions. On 18 February, a group of lawyers announced the formation of a legal defence team to support those who’ve been intimidated or harassed for taking part in the petition drives.

By April, recall organisers were reporting instances of hostility. A video taken outside the railway station in the city of Hualien showed a woman verbally abusing volunteers, calling them ‘garbage’.

June saw further isolated scuffles and verbal altercations. In New Taipei City, police detained a woman who allegedly slapped a volunteer on the back while confronting campaigners. Alleged gang members threatened a recall movement leader in Sindian District. Meanwhile, a political commentator was attacked with pepper spray, and a Taipei City DPP councillor reported receiving blackmail threats.

The Minister of the Interior said that the ministry would uphold freedom of speech for all sides, with law enforcement agencies investigating and prosecuting any violations.

What were the results and what do they mean?

The recall votes for 24 legislators and Hsinchu City Mayor Kao were held on 26 July, and none of the targeted officials was removed from office. However, in seven constituencies, the number of votes in favour of recall exceeded the required threshold, and in another seven constituencies, the number of votes against recall was higher than the votes incumbents received in the 2024 election.

The Blue Bird movement was the result of a complex interaction between politics and society. Although it didn’t succeed in removing any politicians from office, and it’s easy to imagine the intense sense of failure among its proponents, the results shouldn’t be interpreted as support for the KMT.

The recall campaign was wrongly perceived as a nationwide vote of confidence targeting the KMT. The reality is the threshold for success of recall initiatives is extremely high. The movement relied primarily on grassroots volunteers and had support from civil society groups, but the DPP played an unclear role. That 31 recall cases were successfully initiated is already a clear indication of the high level of public dissatisfaction with the performance of KMT legislators.

How can the international community support Taiwan’s civil society?

This is a pivotal moment for Taiwanese civil society to exchange and learn from other large-scale social and political movements abroad.

For example, Thailand’s progressive political movement has achieved remarkable results: it has shaped political discourse, mobilised voters and performed well in elections, although its tangible gains in formal political power remain limited. Despite enduring two party dissolutions and a 10-year political ban on its members, the movement has maintained influence.

Examining how civil society in different contexts organises and responds to political and legal challenges offers valuable opportunities for mutual learning.