To support the government’s policy of extending compulsory military service to one year, the Ministry of Education has introduced a “3+1” program where conscripts can finish college in three years and military service in one year, enabling them to graduate alongside those who do not have to serve. To achieve this, universities are required to raise the cap on the number of credits draftees can earn per semester. They should also offer summer courses and allow draftees to take classes at other colleges.
The program has drawn criticism from some quarters. Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators said it would sacrifice students’ education rights and that conscripts would be “burning the candle at both ends” by juggling schoolwork and conscription. KMT Legislator Charles Chen (陳以信) added that it is sexist in nature, as women do not need to serve and would therefore not be eligible for the program.
Premier Chen Chien-jen (陳建仁) said that the program is not compulsory, but an option for draftees to better plan their studies and service period.
As President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said last year, the reinstatement of the one-year military service is “an inevitable responsibility” in the face of rising cross-strait tensions. Before the compulsory military service was shortened to four months in 2013, draftees usually chose to perform their one-year service after graduating from college, so they entered the workforce one year later than their female counterparts. To address this problem, the ministry introduced the 3+1 program to give draftees more flexibility in planning their career while bolstering the nation’s defense capabilities.
It is true that the program is “discriminatory” in nature. For one, female students are not eligible for the program and its “perks.” However, critics are barking up the wrong tree because the crux of the matter is that only men, according to Article 1 of the Act of Military Service System (兵役法), “are obligated to take military service.” Women can only join the armed forces as volunteers. To promote gender equality, critics should urge the government to include women in the military service, instead of finding fault with a program that is designed with draftees in mind.
Another major concern with the program is that it would undermine students’ education rights. Several top universities have shortened each semester to 16 weeks in hopes that students can use the extra time to participate in exchange programs, internships or other extracurricular activities, giving them more leeway to explore their interests and develop independent thinking. However, the 3+1 program goes against the spirit of this trend, as students would have to go back to adopting a jam-packed schedule, not to mention sacrificing summer and winter breaks for studies.
Nevertheless, as the program is optional, students have the choice to go for a “less condensed” college life. As entering college is the first step to leading an independent life, it is also a period where students are free to make their own schedules and plans. Whether a person graduates with exceptional knowledge, skills or competencies would be of their doing, the program notwithstanding.
Critics of the program should remember that it takes time to train a conscript and eligible males can fulfill their one-year military service during or after college. It should be up to them to make that decision, not politicians or critics.
More importantly, the public should bear in mind that China will never give up on using force to annex Taiwan. The nation is in dire need of beefing up its defenses and making things easier for male conscripts is the least the government can do for them. The program is not intended to inconvenience or undermine male students’ education rights, but to ensure that freedom in the classroom and a democratic way of life can continue.
We are used to hearing that whenever something happens, it means Taiwan is about to fall to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot change the color of his socks without China experts claiming it means an invasion is imminent. So, it is no surprise that what happened in Venezuela over the weekend triggered the knee-jerk reaction of saying that Taiwan is next. That is not an opinion on whether US President Donald Trump was right to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro the way he did or if it is good for Venezuela and the world. There are other, more qualified
China’s recent aggressive military posture around Taiwan simply reflects the truth that China is a millennium behind, as Kobe City Councilor Norihiro Uehata has commented. While democratic countries work for peace, prosperity and progress, authoritarian countries such as Russia and China only care about territorial expansion, superpower status and world dominance, while their people suffer. Two millennia ago, the ancient Chinese philosopher Mencius (孟子) would have advised Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) that “people are the most important, state is lesser, and the ruler is the least important.” In fact, the reverse order is causing the great depression in China right now,
This should be the year in which the democracies, especially those in East Asia, lose their fear of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) “one China principle” plus its nuclear “Cognitive Warfare” coercion strategies, all designed to achieve hegemony without fighting. For 2025, stoking regional and global fear was a major goal for the CCP and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA), following on Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) Little Red Book admonition, “We must be ruthless to our enemies; we must overpower and annihilate them.” But on Dec. 17, 2025, the Trump Administration demonstrated direct defiance of CCP terror with its record US$11.1 billion arms
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
RSS