What ever sympathy the moderates and pan-green supporters may have felt for the campaign of former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Shih Ming-Teh (
From the outset, the plan made people question whether Shih and his gang had gone too far and were flirting with extremism.
If Shih had any sense left, he would stop threatening to launch a strike. Such talk will only distance a large number of people who -- for a variety of different reasons -- feel highly disappointed with Chen but would choose to put up with him for a little longer over taking the country down the path of self-destruction.
When talk of a general strike began to surface, six industrial groups, including the Chinese National Federation of Industry and the Taiwan Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers' Association, immediately called on Shih and his followers to refrain from pursuing the idea.
The disapproval of the business sector for this course of action is clear. Whatever complaints business may have against Chen for the current state of the economy, they dislike even more any talk of a strike. After all, Taiwan has never had a general strike. Launching one would set a precedent that Taiwan's business sector does not want to see.
If Shih persists down this path, most pan-blue politicians will be forced to distance themselves from his cause. Politicians have future elections to think about. While the newly assembled legion of A-bian haters is probably enough to get Shih elected to whatever post he chooses -- if, that is, he decides to return to politics -- this throng is not large enough to put key pan-blue politicians into office.
They have to worry about how people in other parts of society and elsewhere along the political spectrum perceive this rally. The business sectors' opposition to a strike could also translate into reduced support for individual pan-blue candidates around election time. And that means less money for increasingly expensive campaigns.
It is impossible to ignore the everyday people who have supported Shih's rally -- they identify with his idealism and the call for moral rectitude. But would their support be sufficient to make them join in a strike? This is nothing like donating NT$100 for the anti-Chen campaign, indicating support for Chen's resignation in polls or even joining the sit-in.
What is at stake is people's jobs, which puts bread on the family table and pays for school tuition fees. When the price for ousting a political leader with a less than clean moral record is so personal and so costly, how many people would actually join the cause?
This fact has not been overlooked by Shih's organizing team, which explains why Shih has been changing his tune -- if only slightly -- when pressed about the possibility of a strike.
Most people realize by now that the sit-in by itself isn't going to be enough to force Chen to step down. This is why Shih is making the risky move of threatening a strike.
So what happens next? It is not in anyone's interest for the impasse to continue indefinitely. Perhaps it is time to think about how to provide a way for Shih to exit the scene gracefully. Accomplishing this task should be the number one priority for the DPP government and Chen.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng (何立峰) are expected to meet this month in Paris to prepare for a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). According to media reports, the two sides would discuss issues such as the potential purchase of Boeing aircraft by China, increasing imports of US soybeans and the latest impacts of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. However, recent US military action against Iran has added uncertainty to the Trump-Xi summit. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) called the joint US-Israeli airstrikes and the
RSS