According to the most recent My Formosa poll released on Dec. 1, 26.4 percent of respondents agreed that “both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong under one China,” up from 17.4 percent in March from the same pollster.
The proportion of those who disagreed fell from 76.4 to 65.7 percent over the same period — nearly 20 percent over just eight short months. This is not a random fluctuation. It is a sign that Taiwan’s social and psychological defenses are fracturing.
Cross-analysis suggests that the shift was primarily driven by supporters of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). The proportion of respondents supportive of the KMT who agreed with “one China” increased significantly, likely a reflection of the party’s recent election of Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) as its chairwoman.
Cheng has long advocated for a Chinese national identity. Her election has consolidated the party’s base and sent a signal to wider society in Taiwan: The KMT has shifted from an ambiguously defensive position to one that embraces a “one China” narrative.
The Dec. 1 poll, which covered last month, showed that 46.9 percent of respondents view her as inclined toward cross-strait unification, an otherwise exceptionally rare position for a mainstream politician to hold.
When opposition leaders can promote a Chinese identity without incurring a ruinous backlash, their supporters can become psychologically entrenched in their identification with “one China” — a view perhaps once held in private, but now expressed explicitly.
Even more concerning is the rapid shift among supporters of the TPP, a party that brands itself as being rational, pragmatic and outside the traditional blue-green divide, but lacks a clear stance on cross-strait relations. The poll showed that the proportion of respondents supportive of the TPP who agreed with “one China” increased by more than 20 percent from March, suggesting that it is a lack of position itself that might pose the greatest risk.
In the information war, these supporters are among the most vulnerable and are easily swayed by narratives that prioritize pragmatic conflict avoidance and the economy.
A broader issue was revealed when respondents were asked what they see the cross-strait relationship ultimately evolving to. Regardless of voting tendency, 37.4 percent said a business partnership, while only 16.9 percent said enemies. This naive economization of the cross-strait relationship is a primer to the most insidious form of cognitive warfare and neatly avoids acknowledging the risks of annexation or erosion of sovereignty. Some people, who might not be explicitly in favor of unification, are perhaps beginning to feel that it would not be entirely unacceptable.
The fear is that these shifts in polling numbers are just the beginning. When politicians cozy up to China, the social consensus can shift faster than expected. If the proportion of support for “one China” breaches the 30 percent threshold and the effects of the Chinese Communist Party’s “united front” campaign fully take shape, Taiwan’s ability to bargain for sovereignty at the international negotiating table will be severely undermined.
This is no longer a question of party politics — it is about whether Taiwan can still distinguish between true peace and being absorbed. Taiwan cannot afford to sit and watch as its sovereign defenses erode. If the crisis is ignored, it is Taiwanese who will pay the price. As a matter of urgency, we must solidify our defenses by strengthening democratic education and information literacy. Civil society must remain vigilant and come together to defend Taiwanese agency. Once lost, freedom is not easily regained.
Yang Chih-chiang is a teacher.
Translated by Gilda Knox Streader
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
RSS