The issue of declassifying political files has recently become the subject of heated debate. Some civic organizations have been calling for legislative amendments, while Control Yuan reports have uncovered problems in the National Security Bureau’s confidential files.
When the Political Archives Act (政治檔案條例) was enacted in 2019, it was already apparent that it would run into problems. For years, national security and intelligence agencies have taken advantage of the law to keep documents under wraps when it is in their best interests to do so.
One of the most significant proposed revisions to the Political Archives Act concerns Article 11: “The full names, aliases, code names, and job titles of civil servants, witnesses, informants and information sources set out in political archives should be made available for viewing, handcopying, or duplication.”
Currently, Article 11 can be overridden by Article 8 of the National Intelligence Service Act (國家情報工作法), which enables intelligence agencies to either conceal evidence as they see fit or disregard applicants’ request for certain political documents.
The other reason that political archives cannot be fully open to the public is that some of them are defined by national security agencies as “permanently classified pursuant to the Classified National Security Information Protection Act (國家機密保護法).”
The proposed amendment, along with the Ministry of Justice’s proposed revision of the Classified National Security Information Protection Act, seeks to remove the “permanently classified” regulation.
According to the proposed amendment to the Political Archives Act, once every 10 years, a political file would be reviewed and a determination would be made as to whether it should be declassified.
However, the justice ministry’s proposal does not put a limit on the number of reviews, which means files could still be “permanently classified.” In other words, as the files can be reviewed repeatedly, the agencies can refuse to declassify documents that are disadvantageous to them as many times as they need.
As a special act for archival control, the Political Archives Act should have stipulated specific regulations for “political files, especially for classified files that are considered controversial. Moreover, it should not be affected by the Classified National Security Information Protection Act. The political archives are the cornerstone of historical truth. Government agencies should not interfere with the declassification on the pretext of national security.
A consensus has already been formed on whether the political archives should be declassified. The proposed amendment should tackle the fundamental problem: Files that are more than 30 years old should be fully open to the public.
Lin Hai-sheng works in cultural conservation.
Translated by Emma Liu
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
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
RSS