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
We are used to hearing that whenever something happens, it means Taiwan is about to fall to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot change the color of his socks without China experts claiming it means an invasion is imminent. So, it is no surprise that what happened in Venezuela over the weekend triggered the knee-jerk reaction of saying that Taiwan is next. That is not an opinion on whether US President Donald Trump was right to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro the way he did or if it is good for Venezuela and the world. There are other, more qualified
This should be the year in which the democracies, especially those in East Asia, lose their fear of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) “one China principle” plus its nuclear “Cognitive Warfare” coercion strategies, all designed to achieve hegemony without fighting. For 2025, stoking regional and global fear was a major goal for the CCP and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA), following on Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) Little Red Book admonition, “We must be ruthless to our enemies; we must overpower and annihilate them.” But on Dec. 17, 2025, the Trump Administration demonstrated direct defiance of CCP terror with its record US$11.1 billion arms
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
As technological change sweeps across the world, the focus of education has undergone an inevitable shift toward artificial intelligence (AI) and digital learning. However, the HundrED Global Collection 2026 report has a message that Taiwanese society and education policymakers would do well to reflect on. In the age of AI, the scarcest resource in education is not advanced computing power, but people; and the most urgent global educational crisis is not technological backwardness, but teacher well-being and retention. Covering 52 countries, the report from HundrED, a Finnish nonprofit that reviews and compiles innovative solutions in education from around the world, highlights a
RSS