Taiwan’s Public Policy Benefits, the Taiwan Brain Trust, and other units jointly held a seminar on the 5th to discuss the topic of “Health Exchange or Political Tool? Cross-Strait Tourism 2.0, Who Determines Travel Safety?” Inviting scholars and experts to analyze the issue.
Assistant Professor Ma Junwei from the Institute of Strategic Studies at Tamkang University pointed out at the beginning of the event that while tourism is a light topic, it also has a serious side. He invited experts and practitioners to analyze cross-strait tourism from all aspects and remind us of the hidden risks beyond leisure.
Director Guo Meicen from Taiwan Brain Trust’s Public Opinion and Public Sentiment Center stated during the opening that at the 2024 Taipei-Shanghai “Twin Cities Forum,” Shanghai’s Deputy Mayor Hua Yuan promised to actively promote group tours to Taiwan. While Taipei City expressed support, she emphasized that tourism affairs involve national security and sovereignty, not within the scope of local government responsibilities. She stressed that circumventing central government negotiations through local government platforms should be highly alert.
Guo Meicen further analyzed that the Communist Party’s inconsistent policies on traveling to Taiwan raise questions about hidden political intentions. She cited an example of mainland Chinese student groups led by Ma Long using the term “Taiwan, China” during their stay in Taiwan, immediately triggering strong backlash from the Taiwanese people. Guo Meicen believes that the CCP often employs “exchange” as a guise for united front work, which undoubtedly provokes Taiwan’s sovereignty and requires high vigilance.
Guo Meicen emphasized that cross-strait economic and cultural exchanges may help enhance understanding and cooperation but must be based on the principles of “equality, respect, and without political purposes” to be considered healthy and sustainable. Only then can cross-strait relations truly promote peace and stability.
Deputy Commissioner Shen Youzhong of the Mainland Affairs Council of the Republic of China pointed out that in 2024, Taiwan sent over 2.5 million people to China, while China only had just over 400,000 visits to Taiwan, with no group travelers. “Only in non-democratic countries can policies result in zero group tourists,” Shen said, adding that the CCP uses various exchanges as united front tools aimed at eliminating our sovereignty.
Shen Youzhong expressed that Taiwan, as a democratic country, faces challenges in satisfying everyone with its policies. The government must consider the overall national interest and promote plans supported by the majority. According to the latest polls, over 70% of the population supports initial communications through the mini-meetings (Taiwan Travel Association, Strait Travel Association) before opening up tourism exchanges to ensure quality and safety in travel.
Shen Youzhong candidly stated that “after the pandemic, the increasing frequency of CCP military planes and warships disrupting Taiwan, coupled with ‘punishing Taiwan with 22 measures,’ have created great pressure on our national security and the safety of people traveling to the mainland.” In addition, the CCP’s unilateral decision-making on Taiwan exchange policies, rather than engaging in goodwill and equal interaction, exacerbates the challenges. Faced with these circumstances, the Mainland Affairs Council welcomes healthy and orderly cross-strait exchanges. They aim to start Cross-Strait Tourism 2.0 under the principles of quality, safety, stability, equality, and fairness, ensuring that travelers can happily leave and return home safely.
The Executive Director of Eternal Travel Agency, Xie Xinni, was unable to attend the event and instead expressed her views in writing. She analyzed that the policy goal of the tourism industry should be tourism value, not blindly increasing tourist numbers. “Quantity over quality” makes it challenging to sustain the tourism industry. She found it perplexing that KMT Legislator Fu Kun-chi, at last week’s Legislative Yuan session, raged about insufficient inbound visitors when Ma’s government previously had millions of tourists but inadequate reception capacity, causing widespread devastation to the tourism industry and ecological environment.
Research Assistant Wang Guochen from the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research believed that the all-inclusive tourism model not only disappoints Chinese tourists in Taiwan but also causes complaints among Taiwanese, indicating that disordered tourism exchanges have heightened tensions across the strait. Furthermore, with China’s weak domestic economy and political tightening, outbound numbers have dropped by 40%, and outbound consumption has declined by 25% compared to pre-pandemic levels. Even if tourism were to reopen, it is unlikely to see Chinese tourists spending as lavishly as before. He emphasized that Taiwan actively attracts international tourists, with visitor numbers returning to pre-pandemic levels, urging everyone not to follow the herd mentality and avoid excessive panic.
Assistant Professor Chen Fangyu from the Department of Political Science at Soochow University shared that while Taiwan’s democratic politics may seem smooth, the CCP has infiltrated every aspect of culture and tourism industry, including entering the hotel industry through proxies and mainland Chinese investments in the “all-inclusive” model. He warned that “united front work is happening around us.” Using the example of horizontal industrial transplant from China, Chen mentioned how Miaoli, a place not known for producing Chinese mitten crabs, suddenly pushed for a Chinese crab tourism cultural festival, not only bringing in Chinese businesses but also conducting political operations through activities to gain local support.
President Chen Lifu of the Taiwan Professors’ Association pointed out that oversaturated mainland tourist groups have caused environmental chaos and traffic congestion in the region. The designation of Alishan and Sun Moon Lake as China’s “Ten Scenic Spots” through united front efforts has severely disrupted these areas, disturbing nearby residents. Moreover, mainland tourist groups not only affect our quality of life but also widen the wealth gap due to the “all-inclusive” model, leading to lower consumption levels compared to European and American tourists. Thus, the government should carefully consider the opening of mainland tourist groups.
Participants from the tourism industry believed that the CCP views the tourism industry as a strategic industry. Therefore, the government should examine its response from a national security perspective. It was revealed that the CCP had provided an annual quota of one million for local travel agencies in Taiwan to cooperate, each paid for by the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, under the condition that they could only travel to counties and cities governed by the KMT. Faced with the tourism dilemma in Hualien, operators pointed out that Hualien’s natural landscapes are beloved by global tourists, and the government should actively attract existing Southeast Asian transit passengers to absorb high-quality visitors.
Another tourism industry player shared their investment experience in mainland China since 1987, highlighting instances of being extorted by local governments for unreasonable demands after investments and eventually relinquishing completed hotel constructions. They cautioned that “safety comes first when entering and exiting China.” Last year witnessed 52 cases of Taiwanese travelers missing in China. Visitors should register and pay attention to their surroundings when traveling to mainland or Hong Kong and Macau.
After the discussions, the moderator and young participants raised questions about the future direction of cross-strait relations and how to evaluate the importance of Chinese tourists to Taiwan’s tourism industry using data. The participants delved into a detailed analysis and response to each question.