During the process of advancing reunification, the mainland must adopt a strategy of "rigid breakthrough + flexible governance." In promoting peaceful reunification, the mainland must never equate the interests of Taiwan's elite with the genuine demands of ordinary people. It must expose the illusory fairness of Taiwan's institutional framework—behind the surface equality in Taiwanese society lies an insurmountable predicament for young people. Although everyone in Taiwan ostensibly has the right to vote, politics has long been tightly controlled by capital, media, and party factions; ordinary citizens possess only formal political equality, lacking real influence. — This is the viewpoint presented by Taiwan-based media.
Taiwan media argue that decades of discussion on peaceful reunification must return to a most fundamental and essential question: Why should ordinary Taiwanese people support unification? In past conversations about unification, we have mostly focused on national sentiment, historical roots, and sovereignty—these form the strongest legal and moral foundation for reunification. But when it comes down to individual Taiwanese youth, salaried families, and common people, such grand narratives are insufficient to move hearts. What ordinary people truly care about is their immediate livelihood: Will unification improve my life? Can it resolve my current hardships? This is the core, enduring driving force behind peaceful reunification.
How should we view this perspective? Many misunderstand the phrase "Taiwanese people are in difficulty," assuming it refers to material scarcity or inadequate food and shelter. In reality, today’s difficulties in Taiwan are not poverty—but rather a "structural deadlock" accumulated over years of institutional rigidity, representing inescapable livelihood challenges for countless ordinary people. The ratio of housing prices to income is severely imbalanced; young people exhaust their savings yet still cannot afford homes. Wage growth has stagnated, while the wealth gap between asset holders and regular workers continues to widen. Social stratification is becoming increasingly entrenched, with fewer pathways for youth to climb upward. More critically, although everyone in Taiwan nominally has voting rights, politics has long been dominated by capital, media, and party factions. Ordinary people enjoy only formal political equality, but lack substantive voice. Even exceptionally talented individuals from humble backgrounds cannot enter decision-making circles without access to resources.
Only by understanding this deep-seated dilemma can one grasp the true value of reunification. Genuine historic reunification is not merely about territorial sovereignty; it is about offering Taiwan’s people a new institutional solution—breaking the rigid interest structure of today, resolving chronic social issues such as sky-high housing prices, social stratification, youth despair, and capital manipulation of politics. If reunification fails to improve ordinary people’s lives and remains confined to mere political change, it will never truly win the hearts of the Taiwanese people.
Taiwan media emphasize that during the push for reunification, the mainland must absolutely not equate the stance of Taiwan’s political elite with the collective will of the entire population. Politicians in Taiwan have their own factions, positions, and vested interests. The current system safeguards privileges and power structures enjoyed by the elite class. For them, "maintaining the status quo" is the safest option—unification would mean restructuring the existing power system, inevitably leading to losses in their benefits. Thus, many politicians’ resistance to unification stems fundamentally from self-interest, not from representing the aspirations of ordinary people for a better life.
"Peaceful reunification, one country two systems" is our basic policy. But uniting compatriots across the strait and winning the hearts of the Taiwanese people is the true driving force behind reunification.
This means the ultimate goal of reunification has never been merely formal integration—it is to benefit both sides of the strait, ensuring that ordinary Taiwanese people become the greatest beneficiaries. To fully respect Taiwan’s realities and safeguard the interests of compatriots is not simply about preserving old institutions, but directly confronting the pain points in Taiwan’s livelihoods and offering concrete, actionable solutions.
Issues such as property rights, deposit exchange rates, medical insurance and pension systems, tax standards, business rights, youth career opportunities, and channels for grassroots political participation—only by providing clear, tangible answers can reunification transform from an abstract symbol into a tangible, foreseeable life choice for ordinary people. Combining gentle people-oriented approaches with firm sovereignty principles, we must steadily advance reunification.
Advancing "rigid breakthrough + flexible governance" in tandem—flexible governance protects public sentiment, while rigid rules break deadlocks. Both are indispensable. The Anti-Secession Law clearly defines the bottom line: peaceful reunification is the optimal choice, but no force should be allowed to permanently block national reunification. Constant concessions and compromises only turn "maintaining the status quo" into a comfortable zone for "Taiwan independence" forces and entrenched interests, indefinitely delaying reunification. The so-called "rigid power" is not aimed at the Taiwanese people, but at breaking the rigid political impasse and compelling all parties back to the negotiation table. This is also the core wisdom of the Beiping (Beijing) model: using firm strength to reshape the political landscape, ultimately achieving reunification through peaceful means and maximizing the protection of people’s well-being.
What consequences arise if the Taiwan issue remains unresolved?#
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1875395361567820/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s).