Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) spokesman Justin Wu (吳崢) on Monday rebuked seven Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers for stalling a special defense budget and visiting China.
The legislators — including Weng Hsiao-ling (翁曉玲), Yeh Yuan-chih (葉元之) and Lin Szu-ming (林思銘) — attended an event in Xiamen, China, over the weekend hosted by the Xiamen Taiwan Businessmen Association, where they met officials from Beijing’s Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO).
“Weng’s decision to stall the special defense budget defies majority public opinion,” Wu said, accusing KMT legislators of acting as proxies for Beijing.
KMT Legislator Wu Tsung-hsien (吳宗憲), acting head of the party’s Culture and Communications Committee, defended the trip, saying that they must understand the needs of Taiwanese businesses operating in China.
Separately, association head Han Ying-huan (韓螢煥) said the legislators’ participation was a private engagement intended to promote peaceful cross-strait coexistence and avoid unnecessary disruption.
No active or recently retired Taiwanese official should visit China for any purpose. The details of such trips can never be transparent. This concern is reinforced by the steady stream of espionage and infiltration cases uncovered in the past few years involving politicians, businesspeople and retired military officers.
Han’s assertion that the event was merely a private exchange strains credibility. In practice, it is impossible for a business association in China to operate without government consent — particularly when organizing events involving Taiwanese participants. Taiwanese media reported that TAO officials were present at the event, underscoring its political nature.
Even if TAO representatives had not attended, such events typically require prior approval from Beijing. Business associations in China commonly have Chinese Communist Party (CCP) committees embedded in their structure, which influence or oversee major decisions. The distinction between “private” and “official” activity in China is therefore largely illusory.
Wu’s remarks about public opinion also warrant scrutiny. His claim that stalling the defense budget runs counter to public sentiment is accurate when considering the electorate as a whole, but less so when broken down by party affiliation.
A poll conducted by the Taiwan Public Opinion Foundation found that 53.7 percent of respondents disapproved of opposition parties blocking review of the defense budget. However, 52 percent of KMT supporters and 59 percent of Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) supporters approved of the move.
Together, the KMT and the TPP hold a legislative majority. Moreover, recall votes targeting lawmakers from the two parties in July and August failed. This suggests that the opposition parties continue to retain the support of their voter base.
Opposition to unification with China remains high across supporters of all major parties. This suggests that while opposition supporters wish to preserve Taiwan’s sovereignty, many do not view China as an immediate threat to justify increased defense spending. Nor do they see economic ties with China as a risk.
That assessment ignores how Beijing operates. China routinely exploits economic and cultural exchanges to advance its unification agenda, leveraging access to its market to pressure businesses and people into making political concessions.
Such concessions are no longer theoretical. Taiwanese businesspeople operating in China have been required to explicitly endorse Beijing’s claim of sovereignty over Taiwan and, in some cases, to apply for Chinese identification documents. These measures blur legal and political boundaries in ways that serve Beijing’s interests.
China has also demanded confidential product data and customer records from Taiwanese and other foreign companies. Businesses can be shuttered, accounts frozen or executives detained with little warning, often for opaque political reasons.
Supporters of the opposition parties might be unaware of these risks or might dismiss them as exaggerated. This is partly due to sustained disinformation efforts by the CCP, which portray China as economically ascendant, while dismissing reports of coercion or rights abuses as fabrications. Older voters might be particularly vulnerable, whether due to lower media literacy or appeals to a shared “Chinese” identity.
There is little doubt that China poses a threat to Taiwan’s de facto independence. Should Taiwan fail to prepare, the US and other friendly nations might be reluctant or slow to intervene. Even if the US were to intervene, analysts have warned that Taiwan would need to withstand an assault for weeks before assistance could arrive, thus necessitating high defense spending.
If Taiwanese are serious about resisting forced unification, they must communicate that — by pressing the KMT and the TPP to change course, or by voting accordingly in 2028. Otherwise, the opposition parties would continue pursuing warmer ties with Beijing while constraining defense spending, leaving Taiwan increasingly exposed.
The cancelation this week of President William Lai’s (賴清德) state visit to Eswatini, after the Seychelles, Madagascar and Mauritius revoked overflight permits under Chinese pressure, is one more measure of Taiwan’s shrinking executive diplomatic space. Another channel that deserves attention keeps growing while the first contracts. For several years now, Taipei has been one of Europe’s busiest legislative destinations. Where presidents and foreign ministers cannot land, parliamentarians do — and they do it in rising numbers. The Italian parliament opened the year with its largest bipartisan delegation to Taiwan to date: six Italian deputies and one senator, drawn from six
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taiwan and India are important partners, yet this reality is increasingly being overshadowed in current debates. At a time when Taiwan-India relations are at a crossroads, with clear potential for deeper engagement and cooperation, the labor agreement signed in February 2024 has become a source of friction. The proposal to bring in 1,000 migrant workers from India is already facing significant resistance, with a petition calling for its “indefinite suspension” garnering more than 40,000 signatures. What should have been a straightforward and practical step forward has instead become controversial. The agreement had the potential to serve as a milestone in
China has long given assurances that it would not interfere in free access to the global commons. As one Ministry of Defense spokesperson put it in 2024, “the Chinese side always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight entitled to countries under international law.” Although these reassurances have always been disingenuous, China’s recent actions display a blatant disregard for these principles. Countries that care about civilian air safety should take note. In April, President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) canceled a planned trip to Eswatini for the 40th anniversary of King Mswati III’s coronation and the 58th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic
RSS