The recent controversies over Premier Yu Shyi-kun's talk last Saturday about Taiwan striking Shanghai with missiles in the event of an attack against Taiwan by China is a classical case of words taken out of context by the media. It is truly puzzling how those who depict Yu's comment as being provocative and hostile can overlook the fact that Yu was only talking about a scenario in which Taiwan was forced to react to a missile attack by China and fend off further such attacks.
It is imperative to point out that Yu made the statement in the face of a rally by about 1,000 people organized by the pan-blue opposition against the government's arms procurements from the US. The statement was meant to help explain the need for the arms purchases in an easy-to-understand manner. Yu said that in order to maintain the security of Taiwan, if China is capable of destroying Taiwan, Taiwan also needs to maintain that kind of capability against China, so that "in the event [China] hits [Taiwan] with 100 missiles, then [Taiwan] should at least be able to strike back with 50 missiles; if [China] hits Taipei and Kaohsiung, then [Taiwan] should be able to strike Shanghai in return."
Yu was simply talking about maintaining a degree of counterstrike ability in order to deter one's enemy from launching an attack, rather than Taiwan taking the initiative and attacking Shanghai for no reason. Yu's point was that maintaining that kind of capability can help avert war all together, and in order to maintain that ability, Taiwan needs to make the arms purchases. Yu's comments are also consistent with the existing national defense strategy of Taiwan, which is "effective prevention [of war], and steady self-defense."
While some people may not like Yu's bluntness, he pointed out something that the general public in China, which continues to overwhelmingly support unification, should keep in mind: in the event that their government tries to impose unification through the use of military might, the Chinese people might be the one paying a hefty price in the lives of their sons and daughters in the event of a cross-strait conflict. For decades, the Chinese government has been brainwashing its people about the importance of "unifying" with Taiwan -- even through military adventurism -- as part of its campaign to harness the blind nationalism of the masses and maintain the security of the corrupt and bloodthirsty authoritarian regime in Beijing. If the Chinese people can be taught to see things from an alternative perspective, then perhaps there might be a change in China's policy toward Taiwan one day.
Another question that needs to be faced is this: If a counterattack is out of question, then aside from keeping one's fingers crossed praying that US aid would arrive in time, how can Taiwan respond to a missile attack by the Chinese? Perhaps what the pan-blues want is to surrender immediately, and then organize a reception banquet? Otherwise, it is hard to understand their opposition to the special arms budget.
Ironically, on Wednesday, the spokesperson for China's Taiwan Affairs Office Li Weiyi (
If China did not cast the dark shadow of military conquest over Taiwan; and if China did not have hundreds of missile targeting Taiwan; there would be no need for the arms purchase, and Yu would not have to defend this need in such a manner.
As the biggest threat to not only cross-strait peace, but also regional peace, it is laughable to hear Beijing accuse others other of being provocative and hostile.
The US Senate’s passage of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which urges Taiwan’s inclusion in the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise and allocates US$1 billion in military aid, marks yet another milestone in Washington’s growing support for Taipei. On paper, it reflects the steadiness of US commitment, but beneath this show of solidarity lies contradiction. While the US Congress builds a stable, bipartisan architecture of deterrence, US President Donald Trump repeatedly undercuts it through erratic decisions and transactional diplomacy. This dissonance not only weakens the US’ credibility abroad — it also fractures public trust within Taiwan. For decades,
In 1976, the Gang of Four was ousted. The Gang of Four was a leftist political group comprising Chinese Communist Party (CCP) members: Jiang Qing (江青), its leading figure and Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) last wife; Zhang Chunqiao (張春橋); Yao Wenyuan (姚文元); and Wang Hongwen (王洪文). The four wielded supreme power during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), but when Mao died, they were overthrown and charged with crimes against China in what was in essence a political coup of the right against the left. The same type of thing might be happening again as the CCP has expelled nine top generals. Rather than a
Former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmaker Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) on Saturday won the party’s chairperson election with 65,122 votes, or 50.15 percent of the votes, becoming the second woman in the seat and the first to have switched allegiance from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to the KMT. Cheng, running for the top KMT position for the first time, had been termed a “dark horse,” while the biggest contender was former Taipei mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌), considered by many to represent the party’s establishment elite. Hau also has substantial experience in government and in the KMT. Cheng joined the Wild Lily Student
Taipei stands as one of the safest capital cities the world. Taiwan has exceptionally low crime rates — lower than many European nations — and is one of Asia’s leading democracies, respected for its rule of law and commitment to human rights. It is among the few Asian countries to have given legal effect to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant of Social Economic and Cultural Rights. Yet Taiwan continues to uphold the death penalty. This year, the government has taken a number of regressive steps: Executions have resumed, proposals for harsher prison sentences
RSS