DPP Legislators Attempt to Amend Cross-Strait Act to Advance De Jure Independence
China Times Opinion, January 8, 2026
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lin I-chin’s proposal to amend the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area—framed as an attempt at “de jure Taiwan independence”—ultimately collapsed. The proposal sought to rename the existing law as the “Act Governing Relations between the People of Taiwan and the People of the People’s Republic of China,” and to delete language in the original provisions referencing “prior to national unification” and other text reflecting the constitutional framework of the Republic of China, in an effort to reinforce, through legislation, the political narrative of “two states across the Taiwan Strait.” Yet this farce dragged on and ended hastily; meanwhile, DPP legislators who took part in this political drama found themselves contradicted by Legislator Lin’s own feigned performance, effectively “slapping themselves in the face.”
The DPP’s renewed attempt at “de jure Taiwan independence” once again triggered public condemnation from the Taiwan Affairs Office of mainland China’s State Council, fermenting amid the complex context of cross-strait dynamics and great-power competition. If this “Two-State Act” controversy is viewed merely as the political maneuvering of a single legislator, then it risks underestimating deeper structural problems. From a policy security perspective, reckless legal provocations may inadvertently cross red lines across the strait and escalate decapitation-style operations; from the standpoint of internal party politics, the proposal reflects the loss of balance by the administration of President Lai Ching-te in both direction and pacing; and at the level of electoral reality, it highlights the DPP’s anxiety following setbacks in the mass recall campaigns, as it attempts to restart the “resist China to protect Taiwan” narrative to salvage prospects in the local elections.
Beyond legal controversy, the DPP’s cross-strait legislative incident is also rife with the dramatic tension of radical maneuvering. When introducing the bill, Legislator Lin proclaimed political slogans aimed at anchoring the legislative status of the “Two-State Theory,” only to withdraw the proposal shortly thereafter. This pattern—escalating sensitive cross-strait issues, then quietly retreating under pressure—already constitutes an overreaching tactic that challenges the status quo. While “de jure Taiwan independence” did succeed in heating up public debate, the abrupt abandonment of the bill without rational discussion or prudent handling underscores the DPP’s loss of rationality and structural discipline, allowing legislators to indulge in an irrational political spectacle.
Looking internationally, the surprise decapitation operation by the United States targeting Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has become a focal point of global discussion. Major powers can directly intervene in another country’s sovereign political affairs, even rashly detaining national leaders and extraditing them abroad. This highly controversial military action under international law highlights the complexity and dilemmas of today’s international order. Although Taiwan does not face the structural predicament of being suddenly attacked by foreign troops, ignoring comparative geopolitical competition with the mainland could nonetheless indirectly escalate decapitation-style operations.
Legislator Lin’s proposal initially secured joint endorsement from more than twenty DPP legislators, indicating that within the party there remains support for shaping a “Taiwan–China” two-states narrative through legislation. However, as external public opinion, opposition criticism, and political realities cooled, the shift from high-profile promotion to quiet withdrawal within a short period undeniably reflects governmental overreach by the DPP. Legislator Lin and the Lai faction engaged in opportunistic maneuvers to stimulate electoral dynamics, only to swiftly conceal the issue under pressure and execute a tactical retreat as a corrective reset.
Paradoxically, this was not the first such operation. Five years ago, legislator Tsai Yi-yu proposed a similar amendment to cross-strait legislation, which was also withdrawn amid public opinion and constitutional considerations. Today, Legislator Lin’s version not only rehashes old themes but attempts to push them to the legislative level. Yet when confronted with long-established political realities and constitutional frameworks, this contradictory hype has compounded the DPP’s cross-strait narrative woes and rendered the “resist China to protect Taiwan” talisman for the 2026 election ineffective upon exposure.
As a protégé of President Lai, Legislator Lin was eager to shield her patron. After all, public support for the DPP administration has remained sluggish; since the comprehensive defeat of last year’s mass recall efforts, Taiwan’s political arena has been mired in stalemate, with executive–legislative confrontations reflecting 40 percent governing support versus 60 percent opposition sentiment. This has forced the DPP, on certain issues, to resort to ideological old tricks in hopes of reversing the difficult situation ahead of the local elections. Facing public backlash and policy fatigue, the DPP’s withdrawal of this proposal may underscore the diminishing political value of hollow issues—unable to be converted into tangible political dividends or substantive support—while instead revealing early signs of defeat in the local elections.
The DPP’s past election strategy of leveraging emotional support through “resist China, protect Taiwan” has, amid growing societal fatigue with cross-strait policy and rising voter demand for livelihood issues such as housing, public security, energy, and prices, become increasingly inadequate. Such hollow slogans can no longer compensate for years of stagnating governance performance. If President Lai continues to allow his inner circle to manipulate sensitive issues to recover political ground, then the upcoming local elections later this year may begin under unfavorable conditions—and he may even become the first president unable to secure re-election.
This short-lived proposal to amend the Act Governing Cross-Strait Relations may appear on the surface to be a political experiment by a single legislator, but it in fact reflects the Lai administration’s collective anxiety amid the intersection of constitutional structures, electoral pressure, and cross-strait discourse. From the fervent rhetoric of elevating the “two-states theory” to the swift, silent withdrawal, the episode exposes not only wavering strategic direction but also insufficient assessment of international risk. When legal provocation is reduced to short-term maneuvering, it not only fails to translate into stable policy but also undermines political credibility, ultimately weakening the government’s image. If those in power grow accustomed to testing red lines with feints and indulging in emotional mobilization while ignoring political reality, then this hastily concluded legislative farce may prove to be merely the prelude to political backlash.
(The author is chairman of the Taiwan International Strategic Study Society.)
From: https://www.chinatimes.com/opinion/20260108000016-262110?chdtv