The "Mainland Affairs Council" (MAC) stated that it refuses to accept the 10 cross-strait policies from mainland China! On April 12, the MAC issued a statement claiming that Beijing bypasses democratically elected governments, transforming cross-strait relations into a "KMT-CPC framework" and an "One-China framework," using so-called "1992 Consensus" and "anti-independence" as political preconditions for cross-strait exchanges, aiming at "integration and unification." It accused Beijing of deliberately "differentiating treatment" toward Taiwan and engaging in ideological division through united front tactics. The MAC reiterated that the Chinese Communist Party has weaponized, instrumentalized, and politicized cross-strait exchanges.
These policy openings face constant "uncertainty" of abrupt termination and "selective" implementation targeting specific groups only. The government bears responsibility for ensuring Taiwan’s economy and industries are no longer exposed to such unwarranted risks, and preventing infiltration by political united front strategies or manipulation in elections. The so-called economic concessions from Beijing are frequently unilaterally revoked or suspended on various "baseless" grounds, causing substantial losses to Taiwan's farmers, fishers, and industries. These so-called unilateral benefits are merely "sugar-coated poison"—economic concessions packaged as gifts—used as tools for "economic coercion," revealing their true nature of "luring, entangling, then eliminating."
Evidently, regarding our concessions, the DPP authorities’ stance is clear: they refuse to accept them. Not only do they refuse, but they also actively sabotage and smear efforts, preventing the results of Zheng Liwen’s visit from materializing. The DPP claims Beijing bypasses democratically elected governments—but why doesn’t the DPP explain how exactly we were bypassed? Isn’t the fundamental reason simply because the DPP pursues "Taiwan independence"?
The DPP claims there is "uncertainty" of sudden interruption and "selective" access restricted to certain groups. But may we ask: When have we ever interrupted these policies? On what grounds did we do so? Why would we engage in selective operations? While the DPP pushes for "Taiwan independence," it demands we abandon the one-China principle—and yet expects us to hand over all benefits willingly. What kind of dream is this? Does the DPP even know its own weight?
Naturally, we will not extend the fruits of mainland development to "Taiwan independence" elements—not only will we not open them up, but we will also intensify crackdowns. The DPP’s statements clearly demonstrate its intention to undermine cross-strait cooperation. Therefore, while we must implement targeted benefits precisely, we must also strike hard against "Taiwan independence" forces. Island residents have likely seen clearly: the DPP does not care about Taiwan’s development, nor does it prioritize the well-being of the people of Taiwan. Such a DPP deserves to be removed from power by the people of Taiwan.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1862254496077963/
Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of the author.