Lessons in wake of attack
The Taipei Metro attack on Friday last week is not without precedent in Taiwan. In the wake of the rampage, we are reminded that although these events are rare, they still happen, especially in crowded public spaces. Dangers can present themselves suddenly and unpredictably. The most recent incident has demonstrated, once again, that feeling safe is no substitute for preparedness.
Taiwan has long enjoyed a sense of stability and safety in everyday life — an achievement worth cherishing, no doubt, but one which has also allowed us a form of complacency that has lowered our defenses.
In the aftermath of such an incident, we are left stunned, emotional or in shock, and many of us fail to ask ourselves a fundamental question: If we were there the next time, would we know how to protect ourselves and our families?
It is for this reason exactly that the government this year distributed the new orange civil defense guide, titled In Case of Crisis: Taiwan’s National Public Safety Guide. The hope is to spread basic skills and awareness for disaster preparedness, evacuation and self-protection.
However, the initiative was ridiculed by the pan-blue and pan-white camps as being unnecessary and stirring up panic. After last week, the distribution of the guide was far from being alarmist; rather, it was a basic acknowledgement of potential threats.
With New Years coming next week and the Lunar New Year holiday soon to follow, crowded spaces and gatherings are set to become more frequent. The larger the crowd, the greater the potential impact of an incident, and the more important it is to be able to think and respond quickly.
What is concerning is not the motive behind the attack, but whether we can establish a lasting level of safety and crisis awareness. Security at the level of individuals, families, society and even national defense are all on one spectrum. Only when we have a strong sense of how to protect ourselves in day-to-day life can we hope to keep our footing in the face of even greater threats.
Shih Li
Tainan
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
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
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
RSS