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
A 50-year-old on Wednesday last week died while under anesthesia at a Taipei cosmetic clinic shortly after undergoing a penis enlargement procedure. The surgeon was arrested for suspected medical malpractice, again bringing to the surface shortcomings in the regulation of cosmetic medicine. Media reports said the clinic owner and surgeon, surnamed Ting (丁), was previously convicted of negligent homicide for a postsurgical death and had been charged with coercion and aggravated assault after allegedly stopping a patient from calling for an ambulance. He had also been fined for failing inspections and had allegedly permitted people without medical licenses to assist
It was most annoying last week to read Chairman Xi Jinping’s (習近平) fulsome encomium to the People’s Liberation Army during the Eightieth Anniversary celebrations of victory over Japan in World War II. Comrade Xi’s soaring rhetoric was stuffed with “martyrs, sacrifice, solemnity and unwavering resolve” in praise of the “Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War.” His aspirations overflowed with “world peace” and love of the United Nations, of which China is a founding member. The Liberation Army Daily said that every word from General Secretary Xi Jinping “resounded in his powerful voice, illuminating the
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
An American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) spokesperson on Saturday rebuked a Chinese official for mischaracterizing World War II-era agreements as proving that Taiwan was ceded to China. The US Department of State later affirmed that the AIT remarks reflect Washington’s long-standing position: Taiwan’s political status remains undetermined and should only be resolved peacefully. The US would continue supporting Taiwan against military, economic, legal and diplomatic pressure from China, and opposes any unilateral attempt to alter the “status quo,” particularly through coercion or force, the United Daily News cited the department as saying. The remarks followed Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs
RSS