Fourteen years ago, after the Tiananmen Square incident, the Chinese communist authorities purged the activists and blamed "KMT secret agents" for the democratic protest. At that time, I wrote an article in the Capital Morning Post. I said in the article:
"The strife between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has resulted in many `bandit spies' (匪諜) and `KMT secret agents' (國特). The KMT refers to CCP secret agents as `bandit spies,' while the CCP calls those sent by the KMT `KMT secret agents.'
Over the past 40 years, the KMT has caught many `bandit spies' and the CCP has captured many `KMT secret agents.' Some of course were real spies, while many others were not.
The KMT awarded the `bandit spy' title to dissidents or those it felt uncomfortable with. It was a convenient excuse to arrest people and put them away. The other trick the KMT used was to post a `bandit spy' near someone it wanted to arrest so it could accuse him or her of not reporting the spy.
"Similarly, the CCP has created many fake KMT secret agents to purge dissidents. It blamed the KMT for the Tiananmen Square incident and arrested many `KMT secret agents' who had allegedly incited people to rise up in rebellion. The KMT and the CCP have in fact helped each other with excuses to do away with dissidents so as to solidify their power. Their symbiotic relationship can be seen from this."
That was what I wrote 14 years ago. Today the KMT is no longer in a position to make up stories about bandit spies, but the CCP has not stopped using the method. The only difference is that the "KMT secret agents" are now called "Taiwanese spies" (
In the past, the KMT used the CCP to level false charges against dissidents. It was a dirty trick, but it still made some sense. Now the party is blaming President Chen Shui-bian (
It is a widely known fact that China has deployed more than 400 missiles along the coast pointing at Taiwan. So I was not surprised at all when Chen announced that there were, in fact, 496 missiles, since this number was not far from what we had already known.
The pan-blue politicians, however, seized the opportunity to criticize Chen for leaking military secrets, a move that could kill "our intelligence personnel."
I was surprised to hear that. When did these pro-China politicians, who asked us not to irritate China, start caring about "our intelligence personnel"?
Aren't the pan-blues worried that they would irritate China by pointing out that so many of "our intelligence personnel" are working in China?
They accused Chen of leaking military secrets by disclosing the number of missiles. But in my opinion, they were the ones leaking military secrets regarding the fact that we had so many agents working in China. After all, if Chen unveiled any military secrets, they were China's military secrets, while the secrets the pan-blue politicians revealed were Taiwan's.
In view of the noises made by the pan-KMT politicians, Beijing would of course cooperate by creating a few stories about "Taiwanese spies."
And that's exactly what happened. Taiwanese businesspeople in China disappeared.
Pan-blue politicians and the pro-China media again seized the chance to blame Chen as if their prophecy had come true.
Businesspeople disappear in China every year.
No disappearances happened as a result of Chen's disclosure.
The pan-KMT group did not condemn the Chinese communist authorities for trampling human rights and the rule of law.
Instead, it used the spy case as an excuse to attack the Chen administration. I do not know how to look at the party anymore. In the past, they got rid of dissidents with Chinese bandit spy stories; now, they still use China's dictatorship to fight against their political rivals. It is another kind of cooperation between the KMT and the CCP.
I feel sorry for some ignorant and servile Taiwanese people who believe in the propaganda of the old forces. Aren't they afraid of China's ridicule and the censure of their future generations?
Lee Shiao-feng is a professor at Shih Hsin University.
Translated by Jennie Shih
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS