A closed legislative briefing on a NT$1.25 trillion special defence budget on January 19 has become a flashpoint in Taiwan’s fraught domestic politics after a prominent opposition legislator was accused of removing classified material from the meeting room. The episode, centred on Huang Kuo-chang, has prompted criminal complaints and sharpened accusations that the ruling Democratic Progressive Party is using national-security law to score political points.
Huang acknowledged leaving the meeting with a stack of papers that included material provided by the defence authorities, saying the documents were taken out by mistake and returned within about 30 seconds. The ruling camp contested that account after reviewing legislative surveillance footage, alleging Huang had the opportunity to photograph or otherwise copy sensitive content before putting the papers back.
On January 22 prosecutors in Taipei received at least two complaints alleging violations of Taiwan’s legislation on protection of classified information. Party officials submitting the complaints say a conviction could carry between one and seven years’ imprisonment. The charges underscore how legal instruments intended to guard state secrets can be pressed into service in partisan disputes.
Beyond criminal exposure, the case raises immediate questions about oversight of defence policy. The closed session was called to explain a large “special defence budget” — funds that are particularly sensitive because they relate to arms procurement, readiness measures and contingency plans aimed at deterring or responding to pressure from Beijing. Any hint that classified material has been mishandled feeds concerns inside government circles and among security officials about leaks that might be exploited by external actors.
The political dynamics are as consequential as the legal ones. Huang, who has positioned himself as an outspoken critic of the ruling party, accused the DPP of “cooking up” the issue to pursue political warfare rather than focus on substantive governance. The DPP and allied figures, by contrast, present the episode as a straightforward breach of national-security rules that cannot be trivialised in a period of heightened cross-strait tensions.
How prosecutors handle this case will matter for Taiwan’s democratic norms. A forceful criminal response could deter careless handling of classified materials, but it could also chill legitimate legislative oversight of defence matters if opposition lawmakers fear prosecution for procedural missteps. Conversely, a decision to treat the incident as a minor lapse could be framed by the DPP as laxity towards national security, exacerbating partisan mistrust and complicating cooperation on defence policy.