The Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) Deputy Minister and Spokesperson Liang Wen-chieh suddenly dropped a bombshell by publicly announcing for the first time a “complete ban on central government and local government personnel from participating in the Straits Forum.” This sweeping ban not only ignited a war of words between local mayors and the central government but also ripped away the embarrassing emperor’s new clothes of the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) cross-strait policy.
Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s cold retort—“Remember that President William Lai also said he wanted to eat shrimp fried rice and drink pearl milk tea with Xi Jinping”—precisely hit the most unpragmatic pain point of this self-proclaimed “pragmatic” party. As the international political landscape has shifted toward great-power transactions and practical engagements, the DPP leadership remains trapped on its self-made ideological altar, holding the real interests of the people hostage to political slogans.
The U-Turn of “Pragmatism” and the Emptiness of Belief
In the past, William Lai styled himself as a “pragmatic worker for Taiwan independence,” a label that served as a powerful political religion to consolidate his support base during elections. However, with shifts in international political winds—especially the reorganization of US politics and Donald Trump’s pragmatic negotiation rhetoric upon returning to the world stage—the DPP’s “pragmatism” immediately executed a sharp U-turn.
To cope with international pressure, the Presidential Office and William Lai rapidly adjusted the definition of Taiwan independence, scaling it down to mean “the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China are not subordinate to each other” and asserting that “maintaining the status quo means there is no issue of Taiwan independence.” This clever retreat into wordplay exposes the vacuum of belief behind the so-called “worker” label.
For the DPP, political ideals are not meant to be realized, but to be cashed in for electoral gains. When hit by international reality, sacred dogmas can turn overnight into cosmetic talking points to appease external powers. Yet, when facing domestic opposition parties, these self-discounted slogans are repackaged by William Lai, MAC Minister Chiu Chui-cheng, and Deputy Minister Liang Wen-chieh as a “national security defense line” to accuse anyone attempting to break their monopoly on cross-strait affairs.
Double Standards: “Green Can, Blue Cannot”
The second characteristic of this unpragmatic approach lies in its pervasive double standards. It operates on a peculiar logic: “When we go, it is to know the other side; when others go, they are cooperating with United Front work.”
Looking back at history, multiple key faction leaders and local government heads of the DPP—including former Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu, former Premier Frank Hsieh, and even William Lai himself during his tenure as Tainan Mayor—have visited mainland China for city diplomacy, the World Games, or hosting exhibitions, meeting face-to-face with mainland officials. At that time, the DPP loudly chanted “confident exchange, seeking common ground while reserving differences.”
Today, when Kuomintang (KMT) local chiefs try to establish channels of communication and breathing space for Taiwan’s grassroots farmers, fishermen, businesses, and economic livelihoods through the Twin-City Forum or the Straits Forum, MAC Deputy Minister Liang Wen-chieh labels the Straits Forum a “United Front platform” and, alongside Chiu Chui-cheng, issues a strict ban.
Even more ironic is that countless core public officials and faction leaders within the DPP camp have extensive family and personal business interests, investments, or residencies in mainland China.
Whether it is Deputy Minister Liang Wen-chieh, whose wife (DPP Legislator Lin Chu-yin) was previously exposed visiting mainland China for cross-strait television exchanges and posing in front of the CCTV building; or DPP Legislative Caucus Whip Ker Chien-ming’s son doing business in the mainland; or the investments of former Vice President Cheng Li-chiun’s husband; or National Security Council Secretary-General Wellington Koo’s law firm having set up a branch in the mainland; or Legislator Chang Hung-lu’s family working there; or Legislator Huang Jie’s mother’s business ties; and even recent allegations concerning the family trade ties of Legislators Puma Shen and Albee Huang—the list covers almost the entire core echelon of the green camp.
They enjoy the massive dividends of cross-strait civil exchanges and economic interdependence on one hand, while using administrative power to strip local governments of their right to build safety valves for grassroots livelihoods on the other. This massive rift between rhetoric and reality is political manipulation at its worst.
Grassroots Interests Held Hostage and the “Frozen Strait”
True unpragmatism means making grassroots citizens pay the price for political correctness.
Currently, cross-strait relations are highly tense, and institutional negotiations between the SEF and the ARATS have virtually ground to a halt. In this state of “zero communication,” any spark could trigger a severe military miscalculation. As New Taipei Mayor Hou Yu-ih remarked, the two sides need “more goodwill and less hostility” at this juncture. Local forums and functional exchanges should serve as the safest, lowest-cost lubrication for national security when official channels are broken.
Yet the DPP’s political calculations are different. By using Chiu Chui-cheng and Liang Wen-chieh at the MAC to block local government participation, the DPP has successfully squeezed the space for substantive cross-strait exchanges down to just a few windows like the Taipei-Shanghai Twin-City Forum. This deliberately created “frozen deadlock” serves to foster a domestic sense of crisis, securing the DPP’s political monopoly as “the only party that can resist China.”
However, while grassroots industries like tourism and agriculture suffer severely from the lack of communication channels, the ruling administration’s answer is nothing more than the hollow political show of “inviting Xi Jinping to drink pearl milk tea.”
The Crisis of Marginalization in the Global Game
While the DPP plays its isolationist game of banning local exchanges inside Taiwan, the global game among major powers has long transcended ideological barriers. The theme of global politics is practical interest exchange and risk control. Even Donald Trump, on the negotiation table, views Taiwan relations and geopolitics as chips to seek great-power market transactions between the US and China.
While major powers engage in contact, Taiwan is building its own enclosure. A government that calls itself pragmatic shows surprising immaturity and stubbornness in strategy. When the central government bends its definition of “Taiwan independence” to align with international realities while building walls domestically to cut off the remaining local and official channels of dialogue, it is not protecting Taiwan—it is pushing the island into a collective danger zone devoid of safety valves.
“Drinking pearl milk tea and eating shrimp fried rice” is cheap humor used by politicians to appeal to moderate voters in front of cameras. But the livelihood of grassroots people and the dialogue for peace across the strait require genuine, down-to-earth, and pragmatic communication. Regrettably, under the leadership of “non-pragmatic political workers,” the DPP is leading this island further and further away from true safety and pragmatism.
Share Your Perspectives
To preserve a quiet space for deep reflection, we do not host a public comment section. If you have insights on this article, click below to share it to your own social space and start a meaningful conversation with your network.