Written by Cassandra Preece, PhD.
Image credit: President Tsai apologizes to indigenous peoples on behalf of government by the Office of the President Republic of China (Taiwan),
In August 2016, President Tsai Ing-wen formally apologised to Taiwan’s Indigenous peoples for centuries of marginalisation and injustice. Less than a year later, Taiwan passed the Indigenous Languages Development Act (ILDA), widely regarded as a landmark achievement in Indigenous rights policy. The Act recognises Indigenous languages as national languages and establishes measures to promote their preservation, revitalisation, and use in public life.
The path to policy change, however, was shaped by much more than formal state actors and activities. For decades, Indigenous communities, activists, and cultural organisations have advocated for language rights, cultural recognition, and political inclusion. Their grassroots efforts, public mobilisations, and ongoing cultural work created the foundation for later institutional advances. The legislators and executive officials who now carry formal representational roles within Taiwan’s state structures do so within a broader context of Indigenous autonomy and activism.
The passage of the ILDA marked a significant political moment. But it also raises an important question: who represents Indigenous peoples in the development and implementation of such policy?
Discussions of Indigenous political representation often focus on legislatures – on the presence of Indigenous lawmakers, reserved seats, and parliamentary debates. Taiwan is no exception. Since democratisation, Indigenous peoples have been guaranteed reserved seats in the Legislative Yuan, and Indigenous legislators play a visible role in raising issues affecting their communities.
Yet, based on recent fieldwork and elite interviews conducted in Taiwan with academic experts, policymakers, and stakeholders involved in Indigenous language revitalisation, my research suggests that the story of representation in Taiwan’s language policy extends beyond the legislature. In the case of the ILDA, the most consequential representative role was played not only by Indigenous legislators, but by actors within an executive-level institution: the Council of Indigenous Peoples (CIP).
Representation Beyond the Legislature
Political representation is often understood through a parliamentary lens. Scholars typically ask: Are minority groups present in elected bodies? Do their representatives speak on issues affecting their communities? Do they influence legislative outcomes?
In Taiwan, Indigenous legislators clearly perform important representative functions. They have the opportunity to raise concerns about language education, question ministers during legislative sessions, and publicly advocate for Indigenous cultural and linguistic rights. Their presence in the legislature carries symbolic weight, signalling recognition within Taiwan’s democratic system.
However, when examining the development of the ILDA more closely, Indigenous legislators were not the primary architects of the policy. Interview participants consistently pointed to the executive branch – and specifically to the CIP – as the central actor responsible for drafting, coordinating, and advancing the legislation.
This does not diminish the importance of Indigenous legislators. Rather, it highlights that different institutions may perform different representative roles. Indigenous legislators contribute symbolic representation and provide oversight. But in the domain of Indigenous language policy, substantive policymaking authority has largely resided elsewhere.
The Council of Indigenous Peoples as a Site of Representation
Established as a cabinet-level body under Taiwan’s Executive Yuan, the Council of Indigenous Peoples (CIP) occupies a unique institutional position within Taiwan’s state structure. It functions as a site of representation, where Indigenous perspectives are structurally embedded, and Indigenous officials and representatives exercise policy authority.
The CIP’s organisational framework is explicitly designed to ensure Indigenous participation and leadership. According to the Organisation Act, the Chairman (or Minister) and two of the three Deputy Chairmen must identify as Indigenous. The Council comprises 19-29 members, with at least one representative from each of Taiwan’s 16 officially recognised Indigenous tribes. The Minister nominates candidates – prioritising Indigenous applicants – for appointment, and within the Council’s 142-163 personnel, at least 60 percent of positions must be held by Indigenous peoples.
This institutional design highlights the CIP’s representational character. It is not simply an administrative bureau overseeing Indigenous policy, but a site where Indigenous voices are formally incorporated into decision-making. Within this framework, Indigenous actors carry out the substantive work of representation, such as drafting legislation like the ILDA, coordinating with other ministries, and overseeing implementation of education, language, and cultural programmes.
Importantly, the CIP’s coordinating role extends beyond state institutions to include consultations with non-state actors such as Indigenous community representatives, activists, academics, and cultural experts, who contribute vital perspectives and expertise throughout the policymaking process. While not perfect, these inclusive forms of consultation help ensure that policy reflects a broad spectrum of Indigenous voices and community concerns.
By embedding Indigenous leadership and staffing within the Council, representation operates both symbolically and substantively. The CIP provides authority, bureaucratic access, and policy continuity, allowing Indigenous actors to translate political commitments, such as President Tsai Ing-wen’s 2016 apology, into concrete policy measures. Substantive representation here extends beyond legislative debate to policy drafting, administrative coordination, and long-term programme implementation, illustrating how Indigenous interests are embedded within the state.
Language Policy and Substantive Representation
Classic theories of political representation distinguish between symbolic and substantive dimensions. Symbolic representation concerns presence and recognition, while substantive representation concerns acting in the interests of a group. In the realm of Indigenous language policy in Taiwan, both dimensions are present – but they are distributed across institutions.
Indigenous legislators perform important symbolic and agenda-setting roles. Their participation in debates, public statements, and legislative questioning helps maintain visibility for Indigenous issues. They have opportunities to provide democratic oversight and ensure that language policy remains part of broader political discussions.
At the same time, actors within the CIP have exercised substantive influence through their authority to draft legislation, design programmes, and allocate resources. The Council’s executive position means representation occurs through the coordination across ministries and the ability to sustain policy initiatives beyond the legislative moment of passage.
This division of labour complicates conventional approaches that equate minority representation with legislative seat share or parliamentary activity. The Taiwan case suggests that institutional authority, not just descriptive or numerical presence, is crucial for understanding how Indigenous interests are advanced in practice.
Language Policy and Political Recognition
Language policy is not merely a cultural matter. For many Indigenous communities, language is tied to identity, autonomy, and intergenerational continuity. The ILDA’s recognition of Indigenous languages as national languages represents a symbolic shift in Taiwan’s political landscape. It acknowledges Indigenous languages as integral to the nation rather than peripheral to it.
Yet, implementation requires sustained administrative commitment. Funding teacher training, developing curricula, supporting language certification systems, and establishing language development centres are complex and ongoing tasks. These responsibilities largely fall within the CIP’s purview.
Understanding who shapes and implements language policy, therefore, provides insight into broader state-Indigenous relations in Taiwan. It also underscores the importance of examining executive institutions when evaluating democratic representation.
Rethinking Representation in Indigenous Policy Domains
Taiwan’s experience invites a broader reconsideration of how we study Indigenous political representation. Reserved seats and legislative participation remain significant. However, focusing exclusively on parliamentary arenas risks overlooking other sites where meaningful policy decisions and representational work occur.
In policy domains closely tied to Indigenous rights – such as language, culture, and education – executive agencies with guaranteed Indigenous leadership may play especially influential roles. The CIP’s institutional design enables it to operate simultaneously as a state body and as a representative advocate.
This does not mean that Taiwan’s model can be directly replicated elsewhere. Indigenous-state relations vary widely across contexts, shaped by historical legacies, constitutional arrangements, and degrees of autonomy. Nevertheless, Taiwan provides a compelling case for expanding analytical frameworks beyond legislatures when assessing substantive representation.
By examining both Indigenous legislators and executive institutions, we gain a more nuanced understanding of how representation functions in practice. Rather than positioning these actors in opposition, the Taiwan case demonstrates that they perform complementary roles within a broader democratic system.
As debates about Indigenous rights and language revitalisation continue globally, identifying where and how Indigenous interests are institutionally embedded remains an important task. Taiwan’s Indigenous language policy suggests that meaningful representation may sometimes be found not only in elected chambers, but also within the structures of the executive state.
Please read the full article in the International Journal of Taiwan Studies 9.1 (March 2026): https://brill.com/view/journals/ijts/9/1/ijts.9.issue-1.xml.
Cassandra Preece is a political scientist specialising in comparative public policy and political representation. She recently completed her PhD in Political Science at McMaster University, where her research examined minority recognition and representation in democratic systems. Her work has been published in the Asian Journal of Comparative Politics, Representation, and more. She served as a doctoral research fellow with McMaster’s Ethnic Quota and Political Representation project and was the recipient of the Joseph Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Scholarship. Alongside her academic work, Cassandra is a government relations consultant supporting public-interest and industry organisations in securing policy and workforce development initiatives across Canada.
This article was published as part of the International Journal of Taiwan Studies-Taiwan Insight special issue on ‘Indigenous Language Policies in Taiwan and Beyond’.
Taiwan Insight 