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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS