Many reading about the news of South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol’s unexpected declaration of martial law on Tuesday night would have been struck by parallels with the situation in Taiwan; not because of Taiwan’s own experience of martial law, but because some of the reasons Yoon provided for his decision.
Yoon justified the declaration by accusing the opposition in South Korea of being “anti-state forces” intent on overthrowing the government and of working to benefit North Korea. Lawyer Huang Di-ying (黃帝穎) was certainly quick to notice the similarities, writing in a Facebook post that the opposition parties in Taiwan — the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) — are also engaged in blocking the national budget and generally causing legislative chaos, adding that people have accused these bad faith actors of disrupting Taiwan on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Published on today’s page is an article titled “Opposition obstruction of national defense” by former Mainland Affairs Council secretary Jethro Wang (王濬), who criticizes the two opposition parties for doing their level best to stymie the government’s national defense budget.
Wang identifies by name KMT legislators Ma Wen-chun (馬文君) and Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯) — when she was a Taipei City councilor — as having allegedly leaked confidential information, which, if true, would have jeopardized national security.
He also wrote that Hsu has proposed cutting the budget of the nation’s first indigenous submarine program — regarded as crucial by the government in protecting Taiwan against a potential invasion attempt or military blockade by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army — by 90 percent, while Ma and KMT Legislator Huang Jen (黃仁) have proposed cutting the submarine program’s budget entirely.
Nobody is suggesting anything quite as dramatic as a return to martial law in Taiwan. This would be a grievous mistake, and Huang Di-ying in his Facebook post clarified the differences between the legal systems in South Korea and Taiwan that would make it impossible for a Taiwanese president to unilaterally declare martial law, even if one wanted to.
Yoon was forced to rescind his order after South Korea’s own legislative safeguards stopped him.
The martial law question is a side issue. The more pertinent question is the one of where loyalties lie in the legislature — to Taiwan or to the People’s Republic of China. If bad faith actors are conspiring to frustrate the government in safeguarding Taiwan’s sovereignty by slashing the national defense budget or by leaking confidential information and therefore jeopardizing national security, the government does need to act, and safeguards need to be in place.
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Chen Kuan-ting (陳冠廷), who sits on the legislature’s Foreign and National Defense Committee, and Gahon Chiang (江佳紘) argue in an article also published today, titled “Security clearance system needed,” the need for a systematic and robust security clearance mechanism in Taiwan to prevent the kind of leaks that Ma and Hsu have been suspected of.
At present, the “need-to-know” criteria are governed by the Enforcement Rules of the Classified National Security Information Protection Act (國家機密保護法施行細則), but there is no unified security clearance system as in other countries to ensure that classified information is kept safe from foreign governments or bad faith actors. South Korea is still technically at war with its neighbor to the north. Taiwan has unresolved issues with China dating back to World War II. Yoon’s martial law declaration looked desperate and born of paranoia, but who knows to what degree his concerns were justified.
Taiwan, too, suffers from suspicions of national loyalties. Martial law is not an answer, but tightening access to classified information and more vigilance are required.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS