After some initial difficulties and subsequent changes, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has finally managed to publish its legislator-at-large list.
Former legislator Chiu Yi (邱毅) voluntarily withdrew his nomination, while former Mainland Affairs Council deputy minister Chang Hsien-yao (張顯耀) was removed when fewer than half of the party’s Central Standing Committee members signaled support for his nomination.
Apart from that, some nominations were also reordered, but in general the list is still strongly colored by the will of KMT Chairman Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) and lacks any refreshing highlights.
Not only is there no glowing, new vision in the list, the nominees are also on the older side, implying that no preparations are being made to pass the baton to the next generation. This could lead to disappointment among the KMT’s intellectuals and rational voters, and could drive them away from the party.
In the single-member district, two-vote system used in Taiwan’s legislative elections, voters get one ballot for a candidate and one for a party. Legislator-at-large seats are distributed based on the proportion of party votes a party gets. The main focus for bigger parties remains the vote for constituency-based legislators, because the single-member district system is advantageous to them.
However, as the political literacy of the public has increased and information on the Internet is becoming more accessible and transparent, a greater focus has been placed on lists that coincide with both party and public opinion. A good list must meet fundamental demands for expertise, representativeness, policy formation and deliberation.
Looking at the top 17 names on the KMT’s legislator-at-large list, there are nominees with military, police, legal, economic, financial, educational, social welfare, agricultural, water conservation and data analysis expertise.
Yet, there are none with care and nursing backgrounds, which is the experience most needed as Taiwan’s population ages. Furthermore, 12 of the top 17 names have a background in the party, government or China Youth Corps, making the political considerations behind the list all too obvious.
In terms of representativeness, youth representative Wu Yi-ting (吳怡玎) was included on the list as a result of public pressure to make it more attractive, while Niu Chun-ju (牛春茹), who represents new immigrants, hovers near the safe side of the list and does not stand a great chance of getting in. As for representatives of the disabled, culture and diversity, there are none.
When it comes to deliberation, Legislator William Tseng (曾銘宗), former legislator Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) and KMT Tainan chapter head Hsieh Lung-chieh (謝龍介) are all able debaters, and the other former legislators who are also on the safe list might too be able to help raise the strength of the KMT’s legislative party caucus, but it also highlights Wu Den-yih’s strong yearning for the position of legislative speaker.
This is a legislator-at-large list that prioritizes politics above expertise and representativeness, but while it is clearly about political positioning, it does nothing to improve the party’s outlook for next year’s presidential election.
To be fair, the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) legislator-at-large list is not particularly outstanding either. The traces of factional infighting are obvious, and major disagreements had to first be resolved through internal procedures. Although it is clear that politics are overriding expertise, Legislator Wu Yu-chin (吳玉琴), who occupies the top spot, is an expert representative of welfare for the elderly and long-term care.
The second spot is filled by Green Citizens’ Action Alliance Deputy Secretary-General Hung Shen-han (洪申翰), an expert on nuclear power opposition and green energy, while National Taiwan University professor Fan Yun (范雲) in third position is a well-known social activist.
As a founder and former convener of the Social Democratic Party, Fan caused significant controversy, but these three top names clearly highlight an important DPP policy direction.
Comparing the DPP’s list with the KMT’s list, which lacks iconic leaders with a clear political stance on major national issues, it is easy to see which is better. Wu Den-yih should be ashamed for creating such a legislator-at-large list.
Thomas Ho is a professor and director of the Department of Future Studies and LOHAS Industry at Fo Guang University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS