Taiwan’s democracy has entered deep waters and is facing mounting geopolitical risks. The issue is no longer over a contest for parliamentary seats between the blue, green and white camps, but China’s war on Taiwan, targeting its constitution, democracy and defenses.
In the past few years, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has shifted toward an “attack from within” strategy. In light of this, Taiwanese society must avoid descending into an emotionally charged war of words, and calmly examine the current state of parliamentary chaos from an institutional and national security perspective.
First, we must examine the structural risk of weaponizing constitutional tools. In mature democracies, impeachment and budget reviews are instruments of oversight or checks and balances. However, these tools are being unwisely used to hollow out executive authority, paralyze the judicial system, drain central government finances and undermine defense autonomy.
These risks are already manifesting in the CCP’s “united front” strategy against Taiwan, which has shifted from an early stage of economic infiltration toward a new chapter of legal and cognitive warfare. Its core objective is to, through proxy actors, attack the six central pillars of Taiwan’s democracy: administrative efficiency, judicial independence, legislative order, fiscal stability, self-defense autonomy and social trust.
Second, we must examine the current calls for impeachment as a means of political decapitation. Ever since Hualien County strongman and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅崐萁) paid a visit to the CCP’s top official in charge of Taiwan policy, Wang Huning (王滬寧), his actions and behavior within the party have clearly been aimed not at safeguarding democratic rule of law, but at destroying Taiwan’s democratic systems from within. The motion to impeach President William Lai (賴清德) as a form of political decapitation, therefore, is just the latest addition to a series of acts of institutional sabotage.
According to research — including a 2019 study by the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden — Taiwan has, over many years, consistently been ranked as the democratic country most severely impacted by foreign disinformation in the world. This is not just a matter of interference in information flows, but infiltration at a deeper, structural level.
There is evidence that over the past 20 months, political and economic exchanges between Taiwan and China have become increasingly directed by China. Legislative proposals raised by Fu and other senior KMT officials following visits to China have repeatedly aligned with the CCP’s ambitions to undermine Taiwan’s military defenses, fiscal resilience, and international economic and trade cooperation.
These “gray zone” attacks leveled by means of parliamentary procedure carry a higher level of threat than any neighborhood military exercise. They leverage democratic openness to seek to turn Taiwan’s own legislature into something tantamount to a party branch of the CCP.
Finally, we must consider what Taiwan can learn from other nations in defending democracy. In 2018, Australia passed its Espionage and Foreign Interference Act precisely to address Chinese infiltration into its political and academic spheres. Its experience shows us that legal measures can serve to require representatives of foreign interests to disclose their funding sources and operational networks.
In addition, Ukraine’s social unity in the face of foreign threats is a source of real inspiration. Defending democracy is not just the responsibility of the military, but also of civil society. We must be vigilant against politicians who make noises about safeguarding democracy, but whose actions instead seem to seek a restoration of authoritarianism. When they shout about imperialism and dictatorship, we must apply sober reasoning and legally scrutinize their behavior: Would their proposals make Taiwan stronger, or do they make it more fiscally and militarily dependent on foreign powers?
After decades of struggle to throw off the Chinese authoritarian system of the KMT, Taiwan succeeded in establishing a democratic way of life and a sovereign, rule-of-law state. We cannot allow CCP authoritarianism — or its domestic proponents — to use the fruits of our democracy to destroy its very foundations.
What we are facing is a war without gunpowder. We call on Taiwanese to unite in their national identity, resist falling into the authoritarian trap of nationalism, and firmly uphold Taiwan’s core values of sovereign independence and free democracy.
Resistance to the CCP’s “united front” tactics in Taiwan is not in opposition to democratic oversight — it is in opposition to those seeking to sell out the country in the name of said oversight. Only when the integrity of the legislature is safeguarded and the safety net of Taiwan’s democracy is rebuilt could the nation’s sovereignty and democratic way of life remain resilient amid the CCP’s comprehensive internal and external assault.
Chen Tsai-neng is a spokesperson for Taiwan Society East.
Translated by Gilda Knox Streader
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
China often describes itself as the natural leader of the global south: a power that respects sovereignty, rejects coercion and offers developing countries an alternative to Western pressure. For years, Venezuela was held up — implicitly and sometimes explicitly — as proof that this model worked. Today, Venezuela is exposing the limits of that claim. Beijing’s response to the latest crisis in Venezuela has been striking not only for its content, but for its tone. Chinese officials have abandoned their usual restrained diplomatic phrasing and adopted language that is unusually direct by Beijing’s standards. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the
RSS