Where people are today is a combination of every decision they have made in their lives. Food choices yesterday might not have an immediate effect on health or appearance today, but they have a cumulative effect over time. It is the same with voting decisions.
Taipei City Government spokeswoman Huang Ching-yi (黃?瑩) said this week on a political talk show that independence and unification is a “pseudo-issue.”
“I do not understand what the fuss is about unification and independence. The [same debate] re-emerges once every two years, but Taiwan is not going to become independent or be unified right away because of my vote today,” Huang said.
The issue is an ideological threat issued by politicians to scare voters into supporting them, she said, adding later on Facebook that economic development is what people care about.
However, while the results of a single election might not immediately decide whether Taiwan would become a de jure independent nation or be annexed by China, it is naive to think that the voting decisions of Taiwanese will not decide the nation’s future.
Given the growing disparity between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) over cross-strait policy, with the former becoming more open to unification, it is safe to assume that every electoral victory for a KMT member, especially for high-ranking positions, including the presidency, pushes Taiwan one step closer to China’s clutches.
Likewise, in light of the DPP’s traditional stance toward independence or the “status quo,” a DPP leader steers the nation in the other direction.
Democratic rotation of leadership from KMT to DPP is probably what has kept Taiwan from developing a dangerous level of economic dependence on and political integration with China.
If Taiwanese voters had not believed in the power of their ballots and voted the KMT out in 2016, the rapid growth of economic ties across the Taiwan Strait due to then-president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) pursuit of cross-strait rapprochement and economic benefits since 2008 could have prompted both sides to enter the political arena now.
Instead, President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) election in 2016 has helped tilt the balance away from China since her inauguration and ensured that Taiwanese can continue to enjoy freedom and democracy.
This is not to say that no DPP politician who warned against the prospect of unification did not do so to drum up support for themselves. Some of them might have been tapping into people’s fear of losing their freedom for selfish reasons, but it does not mean that threats of annexation are not real.
The rhetoric about independence and unification might be old and repetitive, but it is unfortunately a situation every Taiwanese inherited, which is why it is going to be brought up until a resolution on Taiwan’s status is reached.
Dismissing the issue as a far-off problem risks instilling a false sense of security in Taiwanese. Such naive self-deception would only make it easier for Beijing to snatch Taiwan away, even if the process is subtle.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) concludes his fourth visit to China since leaving office, Taiwan finds itself once again trapped in a familiar cycle of political theater. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has criticized Ma’s participation in the Straits Forum as “dancing with Beijing,” while the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) defends it as an act of constitutional diplomacy. Both sides miss a crucial point: The real question is not whether Ma’s visit helps or hurts Taiwan — it is why Taiwan lacks a sophisticated, multi-track approach to one of the most complex geopolitical relationships in the world. The disagreement reduces Taiwan’s
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is visiting China, where he is addressed in a few ways, but never as a former president. On Sunday, he attended the Straits Forum in Xiamen, not as a former president of Taiwan, but as a former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman. There, he met with Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Chairman Wang Huning (王滬寧). Presumably, Wang at least would have been aware that Ma had once been president, and yet he did not mention that fact, referring to him only as “Mr Ma Ying-jeou.” Perhaps the apparent oversight was not intended to convey a lack of
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
RSS