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
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
On the eve of the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe (VE) Day, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) made a statement that provoked unprecedented repudiations among the European diplomats in Taipei. Chu said during a KMT Central Standing Committee meeting that what President William Lai (賴清德) has been doing to the opposition is equivalent to what Adolf Hitler did in Nazi Germany, referencing ongoing investigations into the KMT’s alleged forgery of signatures used in recall petitions against Democratic Progressive Party legislators. In response, the German Institute Taipei posted a statement to express its “deep disappointment and concern”
RSS