Civil Servants Visiting Mainland Required to Submit Family and Friends Lists: Government Expands Power Under National Security
United Daily News Commentary, August 7, 2026
Under the latest regulations, civil servants traveling to mainland China to visit relatives must not only report the time, destination, and purpose of their trip, but also provide the names and contact telephone numbers of their relatives and friends in the mainland. In response to public criticism, the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) stated that this is "simply information that we need to know and must know," and does not constitute an excessive infringement upon the personal privacy of civil servants.
National security is undoubtedly important, and cross-strait relations are ever more sensitive. Nevertheless, all regulatory measures must adhere to the principle of proportionality. The public can understand the government's requirement that political appointees, mayors and county magistrates, civil servants at or above Rank 11, and personnel involved in national security, classified information, or core critical technologies submit advance declarations before traveling to mainland China. However, when even those simply returning home to visit family members or care for sick relatives are required to provide supporting documentation as well as the names and contact telephone numbers of their relatives and friends, it is only natural for people to question whether the government is truly safeguarding national security or instead presuming that every civil servant is a potential problem.
The greatest harm caused by this way of thinking is not merely the addition of administrative procedures, but the damage it inflicts upon the dignity of civil servants. It creates the impression that every civil servant is a potential target for infiltration and that every family relationship must be subject to government scrutiny. Civil servants are the executors of national policy and the backbone of the government's normal operation. If even their own government is unwilling to trust them and instead consistently views them through the lens of guarding against thieves and spies, then it will only further discourage those serving in the civil service.
This is especially true for many civil servants who, because of historical circumstances, continue to maintain family ties with relatives in mainland China. Visiting parents, caring for elderly family members, and paying respects to ancestors are among the most natural expressions of familial duty. Yet they are now required to submit the names and contact telephone numbers of their relatives and friends to the government, making it difficult to avoid the feeling that they are not simply returning home to visit family, but are instead undergoing a background investigation.
What is even more questionable is that while the government imposes stringent standards on rank-and-file civil servants, it often applies an entirely different standard to politicians. On numerous occasions in the past, when members of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) or their family members have been the subject of public discussion because of business operations, investments, or career development in mainland China, those in power have consistently emphasized that such matters were personal choices and should not be exaggerated. Yet when it comes to ordinary civil servants, merely returning home to visit family members requires multiple layers of declarations and even the submission of the names and contact telephone numbers of their relatives and friends. By comparison, what the public sees is a double standard under which different people receive different treatment based on their status.
If the government believes that collecting such information is genuinely necessary, then it should clearly explain to the public the legal basis for doing so, the purpose for which the information will be used, the period for which it will be retained, who will have access to it, and how personal privacy will be protected, rather than attempting to dismiss the issue with the simple statement that "we must know." A democracy cannot safeguard national security by relying on the limitless expansion of government power, nor can it do so by treating all civil servants with blanket suspicion.
The more tense cross-strait relations become, the more important it is for the government to strengthen the cohesion of the civil service. However, this cannot be achieved by treating frontline civil servants as objects of suspicion. Genuine and lasting national security is built not upon collecting ever more personal information, but upon the rule of law and mutual trust. When the government becomes accustomed to replacing trust with suspicion, respect with surveillance, and personal integrity with mandatory declarations, what will ultimately be lost is not only the confidence of civil servants, but also the public's overall trust in the government.