On June 19, President William Lai (賴清德) announced the establishment of the Whole-of-Society Defense Resilience Committee (全社會防衛韌性委員會) at the Presidential Office.
This initiative originates from Lai’s policy of integrating civil and national defense to strengthen Taiwan’s social resilience to natural disasters and growing military threats from China. Although some have criticized the committee as unnecessary symbolism, it can play a proactive role in Taiwan’s civil-military relations.
National and civil defenses are crucial to enhance deterrence against a Chinese invasion. However, a divergence remains between the military and civil society.
The authoritarian era made the military an isolated community detached from Taiwanese society. During the White Terror era, the military was an essential tool for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to defend its autocratic regime. During 38 years of martial law, more than 20,000 people were imprisoned and 5,000 executed, resulting in widespread distrust toward the government and the military.
Democratization ultimately led to the nationalization of the military and imposed restrictions on its law enforcement and judicial powers. However, the military did not become more open as a result.
Bureaucrats in the Ministry of National Defense still frequently cite “lack of professionalism” or “national security concerns” to refuse engagement with civil society.
In the case of army corporal Hung Chung-chiu’s (洪仲丘) death in 2013, the ministry’s passive attitude and evasive response to concerns over military abuse sparked significant pushback from society. Taiwanese men’s experience of compulsory military service — characterized by poor, outdated training and being a waste of time — also contributes to public distrust of the ministry.
Despite military service being one of the least popular career options, many Taiwanese cherish their democracy and freedom, and see civil defense as an alternative way to contribute to defense, such as by participating in training and workshops held by civil defense non-governmental organizations (NGOs) like the Kuma Academy.
However, the lack of interaction between the ministry and civil defense NGOs leads to distrust, which hinders cooperation.
Former minister of national defense Chiu Kuo-cheng (邱國正) once described the Kuma Academy as a guerrilla group training with paintballs. However, the Kuma Academy has never provided shooting training.
The National Pension Reform Committee, established in 2016, provides a model for promoting social consensus. The new defense resilience committee should learn from the experience by inviting representatives from the government, military and civil society.
The Whole-of-Society Defense Resilience Committee can become a platform of diverse perspectives and provide a comprehensive proposal for security strategy rather than a tool for expanding presidential power, as a pro-China former KMT legislator wrongly claimed.
By bringing fresh knowledge and ideas into defense policy-making, Taiwan can accelerate its transition to asymmetric defense and strengthen deterrence against China’s aggression.
Integrating civil and national defense would also enhance Taiwan’s resilience and allow every Taiwanese to play a role in securing peace in the Taiwan Strait.
Calvin Chu is a research associate at the Taiwan Democratic Progressive Party Mission in the US. He worked for the civil defense non-governmental organization Forward Alliance. The opinions expressed here are solely his own and do not express the views or opinions of his employer.
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
On Monday last week, American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Director Raymond Greene met with Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers to discuss Taiwan-US defense cooperation, on the heels of a separate meeting the previous week with Minister of National Defense Minister Wellington Koo (顧立雄). Departing from the usual convention of not advertising interactions with senior national security officials, the AIT posted photos of both meetings on Facebook, seemingly putting the ruling and opposition parties on public notice to obtain bipartisan support for Taiwan’s defense budget and other initiatives. Over the past year, increasing Taiwan’s defense budget has been a sore spot
Media said that several pan-blue figures — among them former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), former KMT legislator Lee De-wei (李德維), former KMT Central Committee member Vincent Hsu (徐正文), New Party Chairman Wu Cheng-tien (吳成典), former New Party legislator Chou chuan (周荃) and New Party Deputy Secretary-General You Chih-pin (游智彬) — yesterday attended the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) military parade commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. China’s Xinhua news agency reported that foreign leaders were present alongside Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, North Korean leader Kim
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) is expected to be summoned by the Taipei City Police Department after a rally in Taipei on Saturday last week resulted in injuries to eight police officers. The Ministry of the Interior on Sunday said that police had collected evidence of obstruction of public officials and coercion by an estimated 1,000 “disorderly” demonstrators. The rally — led by Huang to mark one year since a raid by Taipei prosecutors on then-TPP chairman and former Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) — might have contravened the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法), as the organizers had