A retired colonel surnamed Lan (藍) from Pingtung County is to be charged with offenses against state security, the Kaohsiung District Prosecutors’ Office said on Wednesday.
This is just one in a series of similar cases over the past few years of retired or active military personnel being implicated in spying for China.
Retired major general Hou Shih-cheng (侯石城) was in September last year found guilty of recruiting officials for a spy network, Major Wang Hung-ju (王鴻儒) and Major General Hsieh Chia-kang (謝嘉康) were in May last year both found guilty of providing information on US-made missile systems to China, and retired air force lieutenant colonel Liu Chi-ju (劉其儒) was found guilty of recruiting spies in a 2015 case in which several other retired and active personnel at the time were implicated.
The frequency with which such cases occur raises the question of whether there is any point in increasing the defense budget when the nation’s military is constantly being compromised from within. The government should root out those who lack the resolve or commitment to defend the nation from its enemies, but in the interim it is imperative that active and retired military and government officials be prohibited from traveling to China.
Those with previous or current access to confidential information pose an obvious risk in that they might sell secrets to China, but there is also a hidden risk in allowing public servants and officials — people in influential positions — to interact with the nation’s enemy.
Taiwan is increasingly vying with China to win the hearts and minds of Taiwan’s youth and talented people. Beijing on Feb. 27 announced a series of economic incentives for Taiwanese, which former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) described as “a soft unification strategy more powerful than military means.”
China hopes to change the way Taiwanese think about their identity, and wants to convince them to support the “one China” policy, she said.
Restricting the travel of certain segments of the population is not uncommon in other countries. In China, travel by active as well as retired members of the country’s politburo is highly restricted. Retired members generally do not travel overseas and current members are permitted to travel only once per year on three to five-day work-related trips, Isaac Fish reported in Foreign Policy on Dec. 24, 2015, citing a 1989 regulation.
The number of Russian citizens who are barred from traveling overseas is rising and the bans primarily apply to those who have worked in the country’s security network, former Russian lawmaker Vladimir Ryzhkov said in a March 26, 2014, opinion piece in English-language newspaper the Moscow Times.
Even the US places restrictions on travel, with Cuba being the most glaring example. US citizens were prohibited from visiting the country from 1963 to 2015, when former US president Barack Obama restored diplomatic relations with that country. US President Donald Trump reintroduced some restrictions last year, largely making it necessary for US citizens visiting Cuba to join tour groups on which their itineraries and accommodations are pre-arranged.
US officials with security clearances are permitted to travel, but various reporting requirements are in place for different countries, as per Security Executive Agent Directive 3 issued by the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence in June 2016.
It is in the interest of national security to prohibit Taiwanese who have worked as public servants or government officials, and who in the process of accepting their employment swore to work for the benefit of the nation and its citizens, from traveling to China or having contact with Chinese government officials.
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
RSS