Latest news with #pro-CCP
The Diplomat
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Diplomat
Taiwan's Recall Elections Failed – But That Doesn't Signal an Embrace of Beijing
The failure of the recalls does not reflect a re-evaluation of cross-strait policy preferences. But it does send a clear message to both the DPP and the KMT. Taiwanese voters delivered a decisive verdict on July 26: none of the 24 Kuomintang (KMT) lawmakers targeted in the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-backed recall campaigns were unseated. Seven more KMT legislators will face recall votes on August 23, but the failure of this first wave has already reshaped the political conversation. The DPP explicitly framed the recall as a test of loyalty to Taiwan, promoting slogans such as '罷免投同意，反共更有利' ('vote yes to recall, oppose Communism more effectively') and portraying figures like Fu Kun-chi as symbols of 'pro-CCP' politics. Yet voters rejected the recalls decisively. So does this result signal a Taiwanese embrace of Beijing and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), or a clear shift toward endorsing some KMT politicians' approach to cross-strait relations? There is little evidence for either assumption. The failure of the recalls does not reflect a re-evaluation of cross-strait policy preferences. Instead, it highlights voter fatigue with partisan manipulation, a desire for stability and competent governance, and growing skepticism toward political actors who treat national security as a tool for short-term electoral gain. A Taiwan-Centered Identity, But Not a Blank Check Taiwan's identity and civic nationalism have evolved over decades of de facto separation from the mainland. Across party lines, most Taiwanese now see their future as distinct from mainland China, and cross-strait debates increasingly revolve around how best to manage that reality, although many inputs from the mainland still outright reject its validity. This Taiwan-first identity is not confined to one political camp. The KMT, knowingly or not, has adopted Taiwan-centric messaging as well. The KMT's public messaging increasingly places Taiwan, rather than party ideology or the Republic of China (ROC) framework, at the center of its political language. Its public branding now reflects this shift, including its official Instagram handle: During the 2024 presidential campaign, when I served as foreign press secretary to Hou Yu-ih, the KMT's second-ever Hokkien, Taiwan-born presidential candidate, I observed a noticeable increase in the use of Hokkien in campaign communications. While the KMT continues to emphasize the ROC, its rhetoric and public symbols are often closely associated with Taiwan. However, this identity convergence is not a partisan loyalty test. Ahead of the recalls, some argued that a newfound unity of voters supporting the ROC framework and Taiwan independence was forming in the face of the CCP threat. The assumption was that voters would punish any politician perceived as too close to Beijing, but the recall results suggest otherwise. If voters were motivated primarily by anti-CCP sentiment, the DPP's campaigns, which explicitly branded KMT lawmakers as 'pro-CCP,' would have succeeded. Instead, voters demonstrated a more complicated, nuanced outlook. They can hold strong Taiwan-centric views while rejecting partisan efforts to weaponize the CCP threat. At the same time, their rejection of the recalls should not be misread as approval of every KMT figure's conduct. Many Taiwanese remain wary of gestures, such as Fu Kun-chi's high-profile trip to Beijing, that risk undermining Taiwan's deterrence or handing Beijing propaganda victories. Taiwan's identity convergence is real, but voters are not willing to let it be exploited for domestic point-scoring. The DPP's 'Boy Who Cried Wolf' Problem The CCP threat is existential. Political warfare, disinformation, and gray-zone military pressure are daily realities for Taiwan. Yet by overusing the CCP threat as a partisan tool, the DPP risks undermining the very resilience it claims to protect. My written testimony before the United States' Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) last week warned that 'over-politicizing the CCP threat, labeling domestic political rivals as 'pro-Communist,' plays directly into Beijing's hands. It risks exhausting and paralyzing concerned citizens, precisely the psychological effect Beijing intends to create.' That warning feels prescient now. Voter fatigue is setting in. When every policy debate is cast as a loyalty test, public sensitivity to genuine CCP threats dulls over time. The DPP is beginning to look like the proverbial boy who cried wolf. The more it invokes the CCP threat for partisan gain, the less seriously voters may take real dangers. This is not just a political misstep. It is a strategic liability. Taiwan's greatest defense against the CCP's cognitive warfare is public trust in democratic processes. If voters begin to tune out security messaging because they perceive it as partisan theater, Taiwan's whole-of-society resilience will suffer. As Khedroob Thondup, a former member of the Tibetan Parliament in Exile, noted, the DPP also made a tactical mistake: 'Recall elections are meant to be a safeguard against misconduct, not a shortcut to power. The DPP's strategy blurred that line, turning a constitutional tool into a partisan weapon.' Their strategic and tactical mistakes, however, should not embolden the KMT to repeat its own. The KMT Must Not Misread the Results The recall failure does not mean Taiwan's voters approve of every cross-strait overture. It only means they disapprove of overt, politicized attempts to weaponize such overtures. If KMT leaders interpret this result as a green light to double down on careless engagement, they risk squandering the very trust voters just extended to them. Reckless gestures, such as former President Ma Ying-jeou's remark urging Taiwanese to 'believe in Xi Jinping's goodwill,' have already handed Beijing propaganda victories and undermined Taiwan's deterrence posture. My written testimony before the CECC also cautioned that 'responsible engagement requires careful messaging, timing, and coordination. Anything less risks feeding into Beijing's cognitive warfare and undermining our domestic unity, deterrence posture, and social cohesion.' That warning applies just as much now. The KMT cannot afford to confuse rejection of partisan manipulation of a genuine concern with a mandate for complacency. This is not an invitation to return to old habits of poorly messaged cross-strait engagement. It is an opportunity to show that the KMT can act as a responsible governing party, not just an opposition force. A Chance for Leadership, Not Complacency If the KMT is serious about earning long-term public trust, it should seize this moment to lead on national security, not just block DPP initiatives. First, it should take the lead on the defense special budget. The KMT has been vocal in demanding oversight of major defense appropriations, including the national defense special budget expected to be requested by the Ministry of National Defense in the next legislative session. Now is the time to move beyond criticism and explain, in detail, what changes it proposes, why they matter, and how they will strengthen deterrence and resilience. The KMT should also outline a clear plan to meet its own previously stated goal of raising defense spending to 3 percent of GDP. Voters deserve to know whether the KMT is prepared to invest in Taiwan's defense rather than simply using defense funding as a political bargaining chip. Second, the KMT should launch a transparent public campaign outlining its cross-strait priorities. That means clearly communicating what forms of dialogue with Beijing it considers acceptable, how it will ensure transparency and avoid being taken advantage of by the CCP's United Front work, and what red lines it will not cross, particularly in preserving Taiwan's democratic resilience. By being transparent and disciplined, the KMT can demonstrate that cross-strait engagement is not a retreat but a risk-management tool that is consistent with Taiwan's security and democratic values. If the KMT succeeds, it will position itself as a credible steward of Taiwan's national security, showing voters it is capable of balancing dialogue with deterrence. The Quest for Unity Facing the CCP threat, Taiwan does not have the luxury of remaining divided. However, it would be unrealistic to expect that, after the DPP just attempted to unseat KMT legislators en masse, the KMT legislative caucus will suddenly become 'cooperative,' especially after DPP caucus leader Ker Chien-ming's remark that those voting against the recalls were 'not Taiwanese.' Emotional remarks like Ker's only deepened partisan wounds, escalating political disagreements into questions of identity and loyalty. Such rhetoric makes legislative cooperation difficult at a time when unity is Taiwan's strongest defense. Bonnie Glaser, managing director of the Indo-Pacific Program at the German Marshall Fund, was absolutely right to point out that 'the deep polarization in Taiwan's politics is harmful to national security… Taiwan's ruling and opposition parties need to strike compromises that strengthen governance and deliver better outcomes for the people.' The failure of the recall elections does not signal an embrace of Beijing. Taiwanese voters are neither pro-Beijing nor reflexively anti-KMT. They are pro-stability, pro-democracy, and increasingly tired of being treated as pawns in partisan battles. The message to both major parties is clear. To the DPP: stop crying wolf. The CCP threat is real, but cheapening it as a constant partisan bludgeon risks dulling public vigilance when it matters most. To the KMT: do not mistake voter fatigue for a blank check. You now have the public's cautious trust. Use it to lead responsibly, including showing that you are willing to invest in Taiwan's security and fulfill your own pledge to raise defense spending to 3 percent of GDP. Otherwise, that trust will quickly erode. Taiwan's greatest strength against Beijing's coercion is a united and confident public that trusts its democratic institutions. That unity will not be won through fearmongering or careless gestures. It will be achieved through transparency, discipline, and serious governance. Both parties owe Taiwan nothing less.
Kiwiblog
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Kiwiblog
Guest Post: Silenced for exposing foreign interference in NZ? Surely not.
A guest post by Nice Hanne of the Free Speech Union: I saw this for myself last Friday in the Manukau District Court when I went to support Portia Mao on behalf of the Free Speech Union. Don't let Portia's appearance or gentle demeanour fool you. This pint-sized Kiwi-Chinese journalist isn't backing down to anyone or anything. Portia is a fierce defender of free speech. Coming to NZ over twenty years ago in search of a democratic society to call home, Portia has earned a reputation amongst the NZ Chinese community for her uncompromising stand against foreign interference by the Communist Party of China (CCP). Exposing the increasingly brazen intimidation tactics and influence peddling in NZ politics by emboldened supporters of the CCP, some dissidents have already paid a heavy price for calling out this anti-democratic agenda. Last year it was Portia's turn. As a result of working with journalists at Stuff to expose CCP influence in NZ, Portia was shocked to find herself subject to a District Court interim order after she criticised an aspiring East Auckland political candidate for his strident pro-CCP views. Prevented by law from speaking out about the issue and unsure how to challenge the judge's interim order, Portia reached out to the Free Speech Union for help. We connected Portia with Callum Fredric (a fantastic Auckland-based barrister who really cares about this cause). We shared Portia's story with you – our supporters – as well as with the media. And we began a fundraising drive to support Portia's legal challenge. Many of you contributed with donations and messages of support which allowed Portia last month to challenge the court order in a bid to have it overturned. How could a NZ journalist be silenced in this way under NZ law? Portia was targeted using a poorly drafted law. The Harmful Digital Communications Act (HDCA), passed in 2015 (and originally designed to protect vulnerable young people from online harm) is now being appropriated by cynical adults to suppress legitimate political expression from their critics. To be clear, being punished under the HDCA is not the same thing as defamation. Rather, the HDCA is concerned with subjective claims of 'harm' – this means that truth is not a valid defence. The HDCA is an almost-perfect political censorship tool. It allows authoritarian sympathisers and potential agents of foreign governments to silence Kiwis who dare to speak up for democracy. It then also threatens heavy financial penalties for those organisations, such as news or social media platforms, which share the journalist's work. Yep, you're reading that right. In our rush to protect kids from horrible online influences we've somehow denied our society not only a fundamental civil liberty, but its best defensive weapon against foreign interference. Handing a club to the opponents of democracy; should we really be surprised they're bludgeoning us over the head with it? The HDCA is also a radical departure from traditional legal principle in that it allows for the emotional subjectivity of a complainant to substantiate their own claim that 'harm' has been caused. Just so we're clear, this means that to establish whether certain digital communications deserve censoring, all that is required is for a self-proclaimed victim to strenuously maintain the digital communication in question was 'grossly offensive' to them. No specialist or clinical expert is even needed to endorse this self-diagnosis. What can Kiwis do about this problem? We need more Kiwis to realise what's going on. We're now waiting for a decision in Portia's case from the judge, and as soon as we have it we'll be sure to publicize it. But her case is not the only example of this kind. We have evidence to suggest that dozens of similar abuses of the HDCA have occurred but have largely gone unreported. Not only is the FSU campaigning for legislative reform of the HDCA, but we're also calling on – and calling out – those in positions of power who aren't saying or doing anything about the foreign interference Portia is trying to combat. Because if those people in charge are too afraid, how can we expect anyone else to speak up? Many politicians have chosen to remain quiet. Either intimidated or simply hoping they can wish away the problem, many are nervous about upsetting a major trading partner. This issue is not your run-of-the-mill 'ambiguous ethics of trade' dilemma. This is political interference happening on NZ soil. Apparently, it's easier for some to forget that free speech – not a free trade agreement – is the lifeblood of a democracy. Free speech allows our nation to flourish domestically and empowers us to exercise independence from the unprincipled and often ruthless whims of authoritarian governments like that of China. We can't leave a few brave souls to fight this situation by themselves. A small principled voice, though mighty like Portia's, will not be enough to combat the growing influence of foreign and domestic voices, however, even in a small country, will make it loud and clear to those who interfere in our democracy that free speech in NZ is non-negotiable. UPDATE: The FSU won the court case. Yay.
Epoch Times
30-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Epoch Times
Major South Korean Theater Abruptly Cancels Human Rights Film Festival Bookings
On the eve of the 5th Seoul Larkspur International Film Festival ( The abrupt decision came from MEGABOX Dongdaemun, the official screening venue of SLIFF, one day before the festival's opening on May 30, affecting multiple films documenting the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP's) human rights abuses. Organizers said they were shocked, and filmmakers said they were outraged. 'This is the first time I've seen something like this happen in Korea,' said Heo Eun-doh, SLIFF's general director and chief curator. 'A theater unilaterally canceling international human rights films—there's no question this was due to external pressure.' MEGABOX is one of Korea's largest theater chains, with more than 100 locations nationwide. According to the SLIFF organizers, they had provided all the materials to the Dongdaemun branch, had signed a contract, and had paid the full rental fee upon the approval that had been stamped by MEGABOX headquarters. Heo told The Epoch Times that his team had been monitoring ticket sales and had found that everything suddenly vanished. 'When we called, they told us, 'We don't support festivals with political nature,'' he said. Related Stories 5/30/2025 5/30/2025 Ticket sales for the festival began just the night before, on May 28, and some showings—including the May 31 screening of ' 'State Organs,' a 76-minute documentary produced by Peabody Award-winner Raymond Zhang, follows the perilous search of two families for their missing loved ones in China, according to the film's synopsis, revealing evidence of state-sanctioned forced organ harvesting, a practice unique to China that involves the killing of the organ donor. Zhang spent Zhang refuted the political allegations by the Megabox theater. 'This is not a political film—it addresses universal values such as humanity and human rights,' he said. 'I believe the sudden cancellation in Korea was driven by interference from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). When the film was screened in Taiwan, I received over a hundred threatening emails and messages and was targeted by pro-CCP cyberattacks. I didn't expect similar tactics to appear in South Korea.' Threats of mass shootings, bomb detonations, and systematic hacking were Other films affected by the last-minute cancellation include ' Despite the setback, Zhang emphasized his belief in South Korean society. 'I still believe Korea is a free and democratic country, and its citizens won't be swayed by this kind of pressure,' he said. 'Violation of Artistic and Expressive Freedom' SLIFF is the only film festival in South Korea dedicated to global human rights issues, according to Heo. He said that he and his team had spent a whole year preparing for the film festival, and described the last-minute cancellation as a devastating blow to the festival and a serious violation of free expression, attributing the cancellation to outside political pressure. 'This was not an internal decision. This was a forced shutdown—clearly influenced by external forces. It's a serious violation of artistic and expressive freedom,' Heo said. He said that what is happening now in South Korea is similar to what happened in Hong Kong in 2019, as depicted in 'Revolution of Our Times.' He said this documentary on Hong Kong's democracy movement serves as an example of why these films matter. 'No one has the right to strip away artistic or expressive freedom. And I believe the Korean public understands that. Think about it—a theater unilaterally labeling international human rights films as 'political' and pulling them while tickets are still on sale? There's no way this came from Koreans themselves,' he said. Heo pledged to keep fighting. 'We will not be silenced. We will not back down. We will stand firm, and in the end, we believe justice will prevail,' he said. 'If we remain silent in the face of this kind of censorship, we're not just giving up on art—we're giving up on democracy itself. This cannot be brushed aside. We will make sure the truth is known throughout South Korea and call on people to stand with us. That is our unwavering position.' The film festival organizers have managed to screen 'State Organs' for one listing in KBS Hall, Seoul, on May 30. The documentary has screened in the United States, Japan, and Taiwan, and is The Epoch Times reached out to the Megabox Dongdaemun branch, but the call was not answered. An Jing contributed to this report.
Epoch Times
27-04-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
US Seeks Extradition of 2 Suspects Arrested in Serbia Over Scheme Targeting Los Angeles Artist
Two foreign nationals were arrested on April 24 in Serbia at the request of the U.S. government for allegedly hiring people to harass, intimidate, and threaten a Los Angeles resident who had publicly criticized Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping. Cui Guanghai, 43, of China, and John Miller, 63, of the United Kingdom, were According to a criminal Prosecutors said Cui and Miller started their plot targeting the Los Angeles resident in October 2023, when they allegedly enlisted two individuals in the United States to prevent him from traveling to San Francisco to protest against Xi's visit for the 2023 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit. Cui and Miller were unaware that the two individuals were an undercover FBI agent and a 'confidential human source working for the FBI,' according to the court document. Prosecutors did not name the L.A. resident and identified the person only as 'the victim' in the court document. Related Stories 4/26/2025 4/25/2025 'The victim had made multiple statements expressing opposition to the policies and actions' of the Chinese regime and Xi on his social media, the court document states. The victim's social media posts included pictures of his artistic statues depicting Xi and his wife 'kneeling and with their hands tied behind their backs.' In the weeks leading up to the APEC summit, the two defendants allegedly had the two individuals surveil the victim, install a tracking device on his car, slash the car's tires, and purchase and destroy his statues. According to the court document, Miller instructed the undercover FBI agent to go to a Los Angeles residential address for a payment of $5,000 after the agent provided pictures of the statues being destroyed. Xi's 2023 trip to San Francisco was marred by street violence, as pro-CCP supporters Miller allegedly traveled to China in June 2023, where he met with Chinese officials in Beijing and northern China's Liaoning Province, as well as Cui's bosses in Beijing, the court document states. Additionally, Miller claimed that he 'had been promoted' following his meetings with Chinese officials in China. Prosecutors stated that they believed Miller was aware that he was 'acting at the direction and control' of the Chinese regime when he referred to Xi as 'the boss' in his communications with others. There was a similar scheme in the spring of 2025, prosecutors said, after the victim announced his plan to release a video online showing two new artistic statues of Xi and his wife. Cui and Miller allegedly paid two other people, who were 'affiliated with and acting at the direction of the FBI,' approximately $36,500 in an attempt to convince the victim not to go ahead with his plan. Miller also allegedly tasked the FBI's confidential human source with staging protests in the United States, including a protest in the Los Angeles area against the visit of Taiwan's president on April 5, 2023, according to the court document. The FBI's confidential human source then enlisted 'a third-party individual to execute [Miller's] tasking,' the court document states, who then 'hired actors to pose as protesters.' A videographer recorded the protest and uploaded it to an online storage platform that was shared by Cui and Miller's email addresses. The two defendants each face a maximum prison sentence of five years for conspiracy and five years for interstate stalking. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California said the U.S. government will seek the extradition of Cui and Miller.
The Guardian
27-04-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Taiwan cracks down on holders of Chinese ID amid fears over propaganda and espionage
Taiwan has launched a crackdown on holders of illegal Chinese identity documents, revoking the Taiwanese status of more than 20 people and putting tens of thousands of Chinese-born residents under scrutiny. Under Taiwan law it is illegal for Taiwanese people to hold Chinese identity documents. In the past decade, hundreds of people have had their Taiwanese papers or passports cancelled for also holding Chinese ID, effectively revoking their citizenship. But a renewed hunt for dual ID-holders has drawn controversy after the public expulsion of three women and threats to the permanent residencies of more than 10,000 Chinese-born people, including many who had built lives and families in Taiwan over decades. The campaign has sparked a nationwide debate about identity, loyalty and how to balance the island's treasured political freedoms with its national security. The current furore began in December, with an online documentary revealing local Chinese authorities were secretly offering Chinese IDs to Taiwanese people. Taiwan's mainland affairs council (MAC) denounced the scheme as 'part of China's evil united front work that attempts to … create an illusion that it has authority over the nation'. The documentary identified three recipients who had moved to the Chinese province of Fujian and applied for Chinese identity cards. Su Shih-er was one of the three. He chose the coastal province for its large Taiwanese community and generous government subsidies for entrepreneurs opening 'local' businesses. Soon after arriving, Su learned he could apply for a Chinese identity card. 'I thought it'd be more convenient for my company, so I applied,' he told the Guardian. What Su did was illegal under Taiwanese law, although he disputes this. To get his Chinese ID card, Su was legally required to have Chinese household registration (known as 'hukou'), which is barred under Taiwan's cross-strait relations act, alongside Chinese passports. Su, who is still in China, said there are 'loads' of Taiwanese with Fujian IDs, and that he felt 'like a victim of their political games'. Tensions between Taiwan and China are dangerously high. China's Communist party (CCP) government claims Taiwan as a province and is preparing to take it militarily if it can't convince or coerce it to peacefully 'unify'. Espionage and infiltration by pro-CCP actors – including from Taiwan's society, government, and military – are real and ongoing dangers. But there are still close ties between the two territories. Figures from 2022 show about 170,000 Taiwanese living in China. About 380,000 Chinese-born people live in Taiwan, many married to Taiwanese people, and about half of them hold permanent residency. In March Taiwan's president, Lai Ching-te, announced new measures to counter China's malign efforts, which included increased scrutiny of cross-strait travel and resettlement. In March, three Chinese-born women were accused of using their popular social media accounts to advocate for a hostile Chinese takeover of Taiwan. Taiwan revoked their residency visas and they were forced to leave Taiwan, as well as their Taiwanese husbands and children. The opposition accused the government of deporting people without due process for views it didn't like. A statement signed by dozens of local academics said President Lai was 'rapidly compressing the space for free speech'. But government figures said the posts were essentially enemy war propaganda, exempt from free-speech protection. Premier Cho Jung-tai told reporters: 'There are limits to freedom of speech, and the limits are the country's survival.' The deportations also seemed to have social support, and at a press conference held by one of the women, a crowd chanted 'go home!'. The case highlighted 'the unique dilemma of Taiwan's existence', wrote two local academics, Michelle Kuo and Albert Wu. 'Imagine a world where an ally of China expels a Taiwanese immigrant for advocating Taiwanese independence. We would fight to the death for that person to stay in the country,' said Wu and Kuo. But, they added: 'Taiwan is under exceptional threat. Can we apply human rights principles around family unity and freedom of speech when facing such a massive danger?' The Taiwan government's next move proved even more controversial. As it became clear the number of people holding or seeking Chinese IDs was larger than anticipated, authorities decided to sweep the island. 'If the identities of the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are not clearly distinguished, it will affect the national security and social stability of our country,' it said. In March the MAC sent questionnaires to public sector workers, university employees and military personnel, asking them if they ever held Chinese ID. The MAC described the survey as an opportunity to 'demonstrate their loyalty'. Then, earlier this month, the National Immigration Agency (NIA) began contacting more than 10,000 Chinese-born spouses in Taiwan, claiming they had never provided proof they had given up their Chinese hukuo – a requirement for permanent residency. Social media filled with angry posts from affected people and their families, saying they felt targeted and suddenly unwelcome. Among them were people who had moved to Taiwan decades ago, before such proof was required. Rescinding hukou can only be done in person, in China. Some commenters pointed to the case of Li Yanhe, a Chinese-born, Taiwan-based publisher of critical books about the CCP. In 2023 Li was arrested in Shanghai, reportedly there to rescind his hukou. Convicted of unspecified acts of 'inciting secession', he remains in a Chinese jail. One woman posted to Threads a recording of a call between her mother and the NIA. Her mother told the NIA agent she had given proof to another agency when she arrived 22 years ago. But the agent said they had no record, and threatened to strip her Taiwanese rights and residency if she failed to cooperate. 'My mother has become an international football,' her daughter posted. In another case, a woman said her mother – who had lived her for 33 years – had also received a demand for proof. 'My mother has a Taiwanese ID card, a Taiwanese passport and has paid labour insurance and health insurance and taxes for more than 30 years. She is a Taiwanese!' the woman said. The MAC deputy head, Liang Wen-chieh, said last week they were demonstrating 'utmost leniency towards such individuals'. But amid an outcry the government announced case-by-case exemptions, including for people who are elderly, haven't returned to China in more than 10 years, or feared persecution if they did. The new campaign has so far resulted in at least 19 people being stripped of Taiwanese papers – and citizenship if they held it – for having Chinese ID. The NIA, told the Guardian those who cancelled their Chinese hukou could apply for permission to 'restore their [Taiwan] status' and come back. But critics worry that the crackdown is only further dividing Taiwan's already fractious society. 'It is obvious that a negative impact is to tear Taiwan apart and push people to the opposite side, which is of no benefit to Taiwan's security,' said Prof Liu Mei-jun, of Taiwan's national Chengchi university. During the furore over the deported influencers, academics Kuo and Wu warned that the government 'may have inadvertently handed Beijing an easy propaganda victory'. China's state media has already seized on the cases, accusing Taiwan's ruling DPP of 'tearing families apart'. The Taiwan Affairs Office accused the DPP of bullying, and only applying the idea of 'freedom' to those who supported Taiwan independence. The Guardian's conversations with people in or close to the government have revealed a perplexity over the backlash, and a belief that any concerns are outweighed by the need to address any vulnerability China could exploit. 'More than 360,000 Chinese spouses live in Taiwan today,' Kuo and Wu wrote in their essay. 'While they may appear to be a demographic minority, their family networks make up a significant portion of society – one the government now risks alienating.'
