Opinion: True Resilience Lies in Unannounced Drills

This year, the urban resilience air defense drill will be conducted in conjunction with Han Kuang 42. The Civil Defense Mobilization Agency announced that all 368 townships across Taiwan must implement and verify the exercise. Media reports indicate the drills will be held regionally from August 7 to 13. This year’s exercise expands prohibited activities: banks, pharmacies, securities firms, and shopping malls are required to cease operations, and all indoor and outdoor activities must stop. Violators face fines of 30,000 to 150,000 NTD.

Those who have served in the military know that drills are treated as actual combat. At first glance, the Lai administration appears serious—but is it truly so, or will this once again become a case of drills being merely performative?

Looking at the numerous drills conducted within government agencies, past and present, they are largely pre-coordinated performances. For example, fire drills are scheduled in annual plans, notices are sent to participating units, and staff along with supervisors prepare written plans and assign personnel to support roles. Units then conduct self-rehearsals, instructing everyone to follow the script step by step. Earthquake drills are essentially the same. Yet, the Fire Agency’s Disaster Prevention Center website boasts that since 2020 (Year 109 of the Republic), a total of 35,540,113 people—more than Taiwan’s entire population—have participated in earthquake drills, including 21,416,671 from schools and 7,838,418 from government agencies. But when an actual earthquake on the scale of the 921 disaster strikes, will those who participated truly respond effectively and protect their families?

If the same scripted drills are applied to the Lai administration’s urban resilience exercises, can they truly achieve self-defense and self-protection? Or are people merely playing supporting roles, performing to satisfy superiors?

First, let us ask the public: Do you know the location of your designated evacuation shelter near your home or workplace? Likely, many cannot answer. Moreover, if drills were conducted without prior notice—unannounced—would we see retired soldiers, as seen in news reports, actually reporting to duty before receiving mobilization orders?

Furthermore, consider central and local governments: if an unannounced blackout and internet outage occurred, they would be instantly paralyzed, lacking crisis response capabilities. Some civil servants might even be enjoying an unexpected holiday. A harsher reality is that despite multiple military drills conducted in the past to showcase military strength to the public, U.S. assessments have frankly labeled them as “Panama-level quality.”

Since Lai Qingde took office, the only national consensus has been the repeated emphasis on resilience. Yet, in actual drills, there are tactical and strategic errors. Tactically, the government still relies on outdated methods, believing that pouring money and forcing nationwide mobilization will seamlessly bridge peacetime and wartime, enabling rapid survival and disaster prevention during natural disasters. In reality, the government has only learned how to perform and fulfill formalities.

Strategically, resilience in war is not merely about picking up guns. Reading Shen Po-yang’s “What If the Communists Attack?” does not automatically preserve military-civilian combat effectiveness. Beyond promoting “resisting China to protect Taiwan,” the DPP has failed to establish communication with the Chinese Communist Party or build confidence in dialogue.

True resilience lies in reducing the risk of war and managing variables, so the people see a government that is both intelligent and courageous, capable of surviving and adapting. At the same time, it means making the adversary understand that bullying Taiwan and attempting to eliminate the Republic of China equates to fighting 23 million people—rendering the notion of “cross-strait familial ties” utterly unbelievable.

The irony is that, to this day, the DPP continues to deny the ideals of the Republic of China. How, then, can it build nationwide resilience and foster a defense capability rooted in public willingness to contribute voluntarily? Lai’s concept of resilience, tainted by ideology and political stance, lacks public trust. Thus, all these mobilization performances amount to nothing more than a waste of resources.

*Author is a writer