'Beacon' or big 'black hole'? This is Taiwan's Indigenous democracy

On May 20, 2025, US NGO Freedom House awarded the Taiwanese government and civil society its inaugural Beacon Award for “steadfast efforts” to protect the country’s “vibrant democracy,” specifically “in the face of threats from the dictatorship of the Chinese Communist Party,” the award’s blurb reads.

Taiwan’s reputation as a “beacon of democracy” traces back to a 2008 statement by then-U.S. President George W. Bush, who praised the island’s peaceful transfer of power following Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九)’s election victory.

The country's democratic image, often contrasted with China’s one-party rule, stems from its hard-won democratic transition following 38 years of martial law (1949–1987) under the authoritarian leadership of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and his son, Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國).

Few would dispute that Taiwan’s establishment of free and fair elections is remarkable. Yet a closer look at the democratic mechanisms behind this success, and conversations with people on the ground, reveal a more complex reality: an electoral system accused of segregating Indigenous and Han populations and limiting Indigenous representation in the country’s legislature.


Stay in your lane

Taiwan’s legislative elections operate under a de facto double-track system that separates Indigenous and non-Indigenous voters.

Article 35 of Taiwan’s Civil Servants Election and Recall Act stipulates that only voters with Indigenous status may vote in Indigenous legislative constituencies, and that only those same voters may run for office in those constituencies.

This means that Indigenous citizens are barred from voting or standing as candidates in non-Indigenous legislative districts, even if they reside there. Despite making up approximately 2.5% of Taiwan’s population, Indigenous voters are legally restricted to a separate electoral track, regardless of where they live or how they may wish to participate in the broader democratic process.

The structure has drawn increasing criticism from rights advocates.

Catch 22

Taiwan’s national legislature, the Legislative Yuan, consists of 113 members elected to four-year terms through a mixed electoral system. Of those, 73 are chosen from single-member districts, 6 seats are reserved for Indigenous representatives, and 34 are allocated through party-list proportional representation.

The reserved seat system was designed to ensure Indigenous representation in the legislature. Critics argue that it ultimately disenfranchises Indigenous voters by limiting their political participation and forcing them to choose between their identity and broader civic engagement.


If an Indigenous person wants to either vote or run for election in a non-Indigenous constituency, they must renounce their Indigenous status and all of the associated welfare benefits attached to it.

“Ridiculous”

One prominent detractor of the restrictions on Indigenous voting is Kolas Yotaka (谷辣斯·尤達卡), who served as spokesperson for Taiwan’s Office of the President under former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). Yokata is a member of Taiwan's Pangcah (also known as Amis) Indigenous group. 

She told TCN that Taiwan’s current limitations on Indigenous representation are "ridiculous" and “a remnant of racial segregation from the last century, and it’s hard to believe it's still in place in the 21st century.” “New Zealand's electoral system does not have such restrictions; citizens with Māori identity can also run for district legislator. Ethnicity should not be a barrier to political participation,” she added.

Reflecting on the effect of the law in constituencies with large Indigenous populations, such as Hualien and Pingtung, she said, “Hualien County can only elect one legislative seat, and Indigenous peoples cannot run for this position.”
“This legislator has a decisive influence on infrastructural construction, national and county budgets, and resource allocation for all of Hualien County,” she added.

“[Legislators’] political inclination will determine the fate of Indigenous peoples, yet Indigenous people living in rural areas, fishing villages, and remote communities have no say in their election or recall. This can be seen as a democratic black hole,” she wrote.

Taiwan’s Council of Indigenous Peoples (CIP) is the central government agency responsible for drawing up and implementing policies to support and promote the welfare of Taiwan’s Indigenous communities. CIP Commissioner Tseng Hsing-chung (曾興中) told TCN that there’s not much interest among Indigenous people for the chance to vote in non-Indigenous constituencies.

“If the CIP notices a significant demand for changes in the law to allow Indigenous people to vote in non-Indigenous voting districts, then it will consider what changes need to be made to address the issue,” he said.


Is change on the way?

Yotaka told TCN, “I believe that in the past, no one paid attention to this issue because, after generations of colonization, even Indigenous elders might have thought it was ‘fair’ to be confined to 'Indigenous seats.'”

“However, I have noticed that as the population of 'urban Indigenous peoples' has increased, this issue has started to be discussed. Especially during the recent recall movement against Fu Kun-chi (傅崐萁), in Hualien County, people have realized that Indigenous peoples not having the right to recall is hurting us. This is a serious issue,” she added.

Despite CIP Commissioner Tseng’s perceived lack of enthusiasm for change on voting rights among the Indigenous community, there have been some high-profile cases of Indigenous politicians expressing discontent with the law.

In 2004, TV news anchor Chen Shu-wan (陳淑琬) was forced to renounce her Indigenous status to run as a legislator in Taichung City. After failing to win a seat, Chen had to face the reality that, at the time, Taiwan’s Indigenous Status Act barred her from restoring her Indigenous status.

The Status Act for Indigenous Peoples was amended in December 2023. The revision grants individuals who previously renounced their Indigenous status a one-time opportunity to have it restored.

In 2018, former New Power Party legislator Kawlo Iyun Pacidal (高潞·以用·巴魕剌), a member of Taiwan’s Amis group, wrote to Taiwan’s Ministry of the Interior and Central Election Commission to ask if Indigenous people could join non-Indigenous elections. Both organizations replied that they could not, Mirror Media reported.

"Unconstitutional"

Several local legal scholars, including Chih-Wei Tsai (蔡志偉), argued that the Ministry of the Interior’s response may have violated Taiwan’s Constitution, IPCF-TITV reported.

Other scholars, such as Ching-Hsin Yu (游清鑫), currently a member of Taiwan’s Central Election Commission, have described Taiwan’s dual electoral system as resembling “One Country, Two Systems” — the name of China’s governance policy toward Hong Kong.
 

"Overrepresentation"

TCN asked Taiwan's Ministry of the Interior (MOI) why, under Taiwan’s laws, Indigenous people are not allowed to run as candidates for local legislative seats unless they first apply at a household registration office to renounce their Indigenous status.

The MOI replied that Taiwan’s six reserved Indigenous legislator seats account for 5.31% of the total 113 legislative seats, which is higher than their population proportion. “Therefore, from the perspective of protecting Indigenous political rights, the current system already provides over-representation, effectively ensuring Indigenous participation in democratic processes,” the official statement added.

The MOI noted that Kolas Yotaka and Lin Chien-chi (林倩綺), both of whom have Indigenous status, served as legislators-at-large for the DPP and KMT, respectively.

In Taiwan, 34 of the 113 Legislative Yuan seats are legislator-at-large, allocated through party-list proportional representation to parties receiving at least 5% of the national vote. The proportional representation system is designed to promote diversity, requiring parties to include women and other underrepresented groups on their lists.

The Great Recall and Taiwan’s unequal by-election laws

In 2025, a major recall effort targeted Fu Kun-chi, the KMT legislator representing Hualien County. The campaign was part of a broader wave of political mobilizations known as the "Great Recall," which saw citizens across Taiwan challenge incumbent lawmakers over issues of accountability, representation, and public trust.

Under current election laws, Hualien County’s 27.5% Indigenous population was barred from participating in the recall vote, as they are only allowed to vote in separate Indigenous constituencies.

In the wake of the Great Recall, Taiwan’s government-backed Indigenous Peoples Cultural Foundation (IPCF), which manages Indigenous media platforms, shared some thoughts on Indigenous voting in a Facebook post.

The IPCF wrote that despite constitutional guarantees for Indigenous representation in the country's legislature, under the Civil Servants Election and Recall Act, no by-election is required unless half or more of the seats in a given Indigenous electoral district become vacant.
“Some legal scholars believe this may be unconstitutional, and multiple lawmakers across party lines have stated that this rule infringes upon Indigenous rights,” it added.

Article 37 of Taiwan’s Civil Servants Election and Recall Act states that by-elections to fill vacant regional legislative seats “shall be held within three months from the date of death, resignation, or receipt of the final court ruling by the election commission.”

However, the rule is different for Indigenous legislators.

Article 37 continues, “For those elected as Indigenous representatives, if vacancies reach one-half or more of the total seats in the same electoral district, a by-election shall be held within three months from the date of death, resignation, or receipt of the final court ruling by the election commission.”

This means that three of Taiwan’s six reserved-seat Indigenous legislators must either die, resign, or be recalled before a by-election can be triggered. If two of Taiwan’s six reserved Indigenous legislative seats become vacant, there is no legal imperative to fill them.

Given that the constituency for Taiwan’s six reserved-seat Indigenous legislators encompasses the entire territory of Taiwan, including its islands, the loss of a third of Indigenous legislators—with no recall on the horizon—means that the weighty responsibility to represent the needs and concerns of Indigenous people living in disparate locations across Taiwan’s 36,197 square kilometers could land on the shoulders of only four Indigenous legislators.

Democracy is expensive

TCN asked the MOI if Taiwan's current Indigenous by-election laws are unconstitutional.

The MOI stated in reply that although Indigenous and regional legislators both serve as members of the Legislative Yuan, handling their vacancies similarly would “require further consideration.”

“Because Indigenous legislative elections use a nationwide constituency, holding a by-election would involve higher election costs than regional ones, raising concerns about the administrative burden,” it added.

“There have been proposals in the Legislative Yuan to amend the Civil Servants Election and Recall Act to require that vacancies in Indigenous legislator seats be filled within three months of the vacancy, just like regional seats,” the MOI wrote. “However, this proposed amendment is still pending second and third readings in the legislature,” it added.

Amis Jason

TCN spoke with Jason, a Hualien local and member of Taiwan’s Amis community. He’s not too happy about the current situation of Indigenous voting rights in Taiwan.

Speaking about what his Indigenous identity means to him, he said, “When I was younger, I used to be embarrassed by my Indigenous identity. Indigenous people used to be discriminated against in Taiwan.”

He added, “But when I was 18 and took part in coming-of-age activities, older members of the tribe reminded me of the importance of my Indigenous identity. That’s when I started to appreciate who I was.”

On Taiwan’s election law forcing Indigenous people to abandon their Indigenous identity to vote in non-Indigenous elections, Jason said:
“Putting high ideals aside for a minute, this is pure and simple denial of our human rights.”

“Our Indigenous identity comes from our blood — you can’t just take it away,” he added.

“Taiwan’s requirement for Indigenous people to cancel their identity to vote is in breach of Taiwan’s Constitution,” he said. “The Constitution clearly states that the people of the Republic of China have a right to vote — so why should Indigenous people be stripped of their identity before they can vote?” he asked.

"Ridiculous!"

Not all of the voices critical of the voting law belong to Indigenous activists. Some non-Indigenous voices have also spoken up to question the legitimacy of Taiwan’s election laws.

One such voice is Professor Cheng-Hao Pao (包正豪), Dean of the College of International Affairs at Taiwan’s Tamkang University. Pao has written extensively on Indigenous suffrage and voting behavior.

Professor Pao told TCN it is unreasonable for Indigenous people to have to give up their Indigenous identity to participate in local, non-Indigenous legislative elections. “Indigenous people should be able to vote freely in the constituency where they live,” he added.

He sees several problems with Taiwan’s current electoral system relating to Indigenous people.

Pao said it is important to re-examine the way Taiwan categorizes Indigenous identity. Currently, Taiwan’s Indigenous people are divided into two administrative categories: Plains and Mountain Indigenous.

This classification dates back to the Qing Dynasty’s rule of Taiwan. In 1760, the Qing government began using natural land features to draw boundaries separating the lowland plains-dwelling Indigenous groups, who had become more integrated into Han Chinese society and administration, from the comparatively remote Mountain Indigenous groups.

After the Nationalist Government (KMT) relocated to Taiwan, Indigenous peoples were labeled as “Mountain Compatriots” (山地山胞) and “Plains Compatriots” (平地山胞). The official term “Indigenous Peoples” (原住民) was not adopted until Taiwan’s 1994 Indigenous Cultural Conference.

Under the current Indigenous Peoples Status Act, the year 1945 is used to determine an individual's Indigenous classification. Those who had household registration in mountainous areas before 1945 are classified as Mountain Indigenous, while those registered in plains areas are considered Plains Indigenous.

This classification is permanent, regardless of later relocation or family changes. For individuals with one Mountain and one Plains parent, status is determined by which parent’s surname they take.

Pao says that this classification system was originally related to the geographic region where people lived and should not relate to a person’s Indigenous identity.
“No Indigenous people identify themselves as being either Plains or Mountain Indigenous,” he added.

Taiwan’s election law prevents Mountain Indigenous people from voting for Plains candidates, and vice versa.

Under Taiwan’s current election laws, there are cases where people from the same family cannot vote for the same Indigenous legislator because their identity has been fixed as either Plains or Mountain — a situation which Pao calls “ridiculous!”

Reserved seat limits and identity barriers

Pao believes that Taiwan’s Civil Servants Election and Recall Act should not force Indigenous people to abandon their identity to vote in non-Indigenous constituencies.

“I don’t have to give up my identity as a citizen of the ROC to vote in a different constituency, so why should Indigenous people?” he asked.

He said the reserved seats system is a minimum guarantee for Taiwan’s Indigenous people and something that Han people owe them for historic and systematic oppression. Over 96% of Taiwan’s citizens identify as belonging to the Han ethnic group.

“If there are Indigenous people who would like to stand up and represent Indigenous people in regular, non-Indigenous constituencies, I don’t see a problem there,” he added.

Pao says Indigenous people should have the freedom to switch from an Indigenous constituency to a local non-Indigenous voting district. “If we allow this, we will increase Indigenous representation,” he said.

“If an Indigenous person is allowed to run in the Kaohsiung City district election, and they win, the result is a seat occupied by a person who is supported by Indigenous people and who is willing to represent them in government.”

The New Zealand model

“Such a system would be closer to New Zealand’s, which I prefer,” Pao said.

New Zealand’s voting system includes dedicated Māori electorates, allowing voters of Māori descent to choose between the general or Māori electoral roll. Those on the Māori roll vote in one of seven Māori electorates — geographic constituencies established to ensure Māori representation in Parliament. These seats provide dedicated, but not exclusive representation, as Māori can also be elected through general electorates or party lists.

Pao reiterated that Taiwan’s Indigenous people should have the freedom to switch from an Indigenous constituency to a local non-Indigenous voting district. “If we allow this, we will increase Indigenous representation,” he added.

Still positive

Although Pao sees room for improvement, he notes that Taiwan’s efforts to ensure Indigenous representation are world-leading.

“Apart from New Zealand, there are no other countries in the world trying as hard to protect Indigenous voting rights as Taiwan,” said Pao.
New Zealand has made more progress on this issue than Taiwan, he added, largely because Indigenous people make up 17% of the population in New Zealand.

Pao also emphasized that Taiwan’s reserved seat system was actively devised by the KMT government, not won through protest.

Democracy in progress

Taiwan’s democracy is young, strong, and a work in progress. Like all democracies, the country continues to navigate the complex challenges of political representation, particularly in ensuring the rights and recognition of its Indigenous peoples.

While Taiwan is often described as a “beacon” of democracy, it’s perhaps closer to a lava lamp—bright indeed, but also fluid, ever-shifting, and at times uneven.

Taiwan’s reserved Indigenous seats demonstrate a commitment to inclusion; however, restrictions on where Indigenous people may vote or stand for office are rooted in outdated frameworks that may no longer correspond with the complexities of contemporary Indigenous life.