20040929

`INTEMPERATE': Singapore responded to MOFA head Mark Chen's comments by repeating that `Taiwan is pursuing a dangerous course towards independence'

STAFF WRITER

Responding to criticism of Minister of Foreign Affairs Mark Chen's blunt assessments of Singapore during his meeting with pro-independence activists on Monday, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) spokesman Michel Lu yesterday said the foreign minister apologized for his inappropriate choice of words.

"I deeply apologize for the words I said which made others uncomfortable," Lu quoted Chen as saying.

In response to press queries on Chen's remarks, a spokesman for Singapore's Foreign Affairs Ministry said, "This is not the first time Singapore has stated our concerns about Taiwan. Many other countries also believe that Taiwan is pursuing a dangerous course towards independence. Resort[ing] to intemperate language cannot assuage these concerns."

Infuriated by his Singaporean counterpart George Yeo's criticism of Taiwan during the recent UN General Assembly, Chen called the city-state "a tiny nation no bigger than a piece of snot."

He also said, "Singapore holds China's lan pa ( LP) with its hands, if I may use these ugly words."

In the Hoklo language, also known as Taiwanese, lan pa means testicles; saying that someone holds another's lan pa means that the former is fawning over the latter.

Chen was venting his anger over what he considered to be Singapore's attempt to curry favor with China.

The foreign minister harbored no malice in his comments on Singapore, Lu said. He added that the reason Chen used the earthy figures of speech was because he was meeting with local people and wanted to use terms that were easily understood by the general public when discussing the nation's situation on the international stage.

Lu said that the ministry explained this reason for Chen's choice of idioms to the Singaporean mission in Taipei, and that the envoys had responded that they understood. Lu stressed the nation's ties with Singapore remain good.

Executive Yuan spokesman Chen Chi-mai said that while he comprehends the foreign minister's feelings, his choice of words nonetheless was inappropriate.

Presidential Office Secretary-General Su Tseng-chang yesterday said that given Taiwan's difficult international status, the nation should interact with good intentions toward other countries and reduce the role of personal emotions when relating to foreign nations.

In response's to Chen's comments, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislative caucus whip Tsai Huang-liang said that he could understand Chen's eagerness to safeguard Taiwan's dignity.

Tsai admitted that the DPP is indeed dissatisfied with Singapore, but said that Chen's words were inappropriate since he represents the country.

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator John Chang yesterday called Chen's remarks "unimaginable."

"Even though Chen was not satisfied with Singapore's recent actions, he should not let his emotions affect him like this since he represents the nation," Chang said.

"He should have fought back in a more indirect and sophisticated way, instead of using such low-class language," Chang said.

"The legislator-turned-minister should really go to the training center of his ministry and take some diplomatic training there," the minister-turned-legislator said.

Another KMT lawmaker, Bill Sun, said that Chen's words were "a severe example of misspeaking in the international arena."

"In fact, Chen's comments were made to attract votes from the pro-independence camp," Sun said yesterday. "However, the nation's people will pay a considerable price for this eventually."

"Most of Taiwan's diplomatic allies are much smaller than Singapore. The ministry should immediately apologize for such inappropriate criticism," Sun said.

SELF-DEFENSE: The vice foreign minister told the UN that Pyongyang had been forced to acquire a nuclear deterrent because of increasingly threatening US policies

AP , UNITED NATIONS

North Korea says it has turned the plutonium from 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods into nuclear weapons to serve as a deterrent against increasing US nuclear threats and to prevent a nuclear war in northeast Asia.

Warning that the danger of war on the Korean peninsula "is snowballing," Vice Foreign Minister Choe Su Hon on Monday provided details of the nuclear deterrent that he said North Korea has developed for self-defense.

He told the UN General Assembly's annual ministerial meeting that Pyongyang had "no other option but to possess a nuclear deterrent" because of US policies that he claimed were designed to "eliminate" North Korea and make it "a target of pre-emptive nuclear strikes."

"Our deterrent is, in all its intents and purposes, the self-defensive means to cope with the ever increasing US nuclear threats and further, prevent a nuclear war in northeast Asia," he told a news conference after his speech.

In Washington, a State Department official noted that Secretary of State Colin Powell has said repeatedly that the US has no plans to attack the communist country.

But in his General Assembly speech and at the press conference with a small group of reporters, Choe accused the US of intensifying threats to attack and destroying the basis for negotiations over Pyongyang's nuclear program.

Nonetheless, he said, North Korea is still ready to dismantle its nuclear program if Washington abandons its "hostile policy" and is prepared to coexist peacefully.

At the moment, however, he said "the ever intensifying US hostile policy and the clandestine nuclear-related experiments recently revealed in South Korea are constituting big stumbling blocks" and make it impossible for North Korea to participate in the continuation of six-nation talks on its nuclear program.

North Korea said earlier this year that it had reprocessed the 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods and was increasing its "nuclear deterrent" but did not provide any details.

Choe was asked at the news conference what was included in the nuclear deterrent.

"We have already made clear that we have already reprocessed 8,000 wasted fuel rods and transformed them into arms," he said, without elaborating on the kinds or numbers.

When asked if the fuel had been turned into actual weapons, not just weapons-grade material, Choe said, "We declared that we weaponized this."

South Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Lee Soo-hyuck said in late April that it was estimated that eight nuclear bombs could be made if all 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods were reprocessed. Before the reprocessing, South Korea said it believed the North had enough nuclear material to build one or two nuclear bombs.

"If the six-party talks are to be resumed, the basis for the talks demolished by the US should be properly set up and the truth of the secret nuclear experiments in South Korea clarified completely," Choe told the General Assembly.

South Korea disclosed recently that its scientists conducted a plutonium-based nuclear experiment more than 20 years ago and a uranium-enrichment experiment in 2000. It denied having any weapons ambitions, and an investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency is under way.

Choe told the press conference that North Korea wants an explanation because Pyongyang believes it is impossible that such experiments took place "without US technology and US approval."

He also accused President George W. Bush's administration of being "dead set against" reconciliation between North and South Korea, and of adopting an "extremely undisguised ... hostile policy" toward the country after it came to power in early 2001.

Eleven academics from the Academia Sinica, together with over 100 retired generals, have expressed their opposition to the arms procurement program, taking to the streets on Saturday for a protest march that ended outside the Legislative Yuan. There is still much room for debate on the issue of whether NT$610.8 billion is a little steep for the intended purchases from the US government.

Those who protest the arms procurement, saying that it will only cause mutual escalation between Taiwan and China, are only giving China the opportunity to put more pressure on Taiwan. This misconception not only puts the safety of the Taiwanese at risk, it also has serious implications for the maintenance of peace within Asia and in the world. One could also be skeptical about the political motivations behind all this.

Three years ago the Pentagon commissioned a study by the Rand Corp entitled The United States and Asia: Towards a New US Strategy and Force Posture. The ensuing report recommended that the US military use the island of Guam as a major base, and that it make arrangements to be able to use airports in the southernmost islands of the Ryukyu chain.

Three years later, many of the recommendations made within the report have subsequently been officially implemented by the US government. For example, for the first time in the thirty years since the end of the US-Vietnam War, B-52 bombers have been dispatched to Asia, with six being kept on Guam. Also, at the end of last year four nuclear-powered submarines were sent to the West Pacific, and the budget has been increased to allow for six. With all this, it's clear that Guam has already been made into a military defense hub for the Asia-Pacific part of the US' global military strategy.

Japan's Shimoji-shima, mentioned in the Rand report, is only 270km away from Naha city in Okinawa and 460km away from Taipei, a major advantage since a quick response can be made from there to any situation that arises in the Taiwan Strait. As a way out of the problem of the relocation of US Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, the Japanese government is considering making Shimoji into a base to be jointly used by a special group created from the Japan Self Defense Forces and the US Air Force. This, they hope, will allow them to respond to any future problems that emerge in the surrounding area.

In order to deal with any possible attack from North Korea or China, the US State Department has allocated a huge budget of over US$5 billion for a five-year program to establish a missile defense system, and has asked Australia to shoulder some of the expense and to participate in research and development.

Despite the fact that Australia, because of its location in the South Pacific, is in the least danger, Australian Defense Minister Defense Robert Hill responded by saying that although the country is in no immediate danger from a missile attack, there are no guarantees that this will always be the case. Given this, the Australian government decided to bite the bullet and coughed up the expenditure.

Singapore and its neighbors have, up to now, had the least security concerns, but nevertheless have to make basic preparations for any potential threat in the long term. Unless it wants to develop its own world-class naval and air force military capability, Singapore has to participate in US President George W. Bush's Asian military strategy.

This will link the Indian Ocean with the Pacific through the Malacca Strait -- from the US naval base of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, past Singapore and up to Japan in the northeast. Singapore will hold joint military exercises with the US, opening up major ports for large US warships, including aircraft carriers. This is likely to severely anger China, but if Singapore is to guarantee its continued existence and development, it will need to join in military programs with other free, democratic governments.

Three years ago, without any apparent threat looming over it, Singapore announced its intention to purchase the latest fighter jets from the US at a cost of US$2 billion. It also said that it was interested in procuring F-15s from Boeing and F-16s from Lockheed Martin. At the same time, the US State Department said that Singapore would be able to get 12 Apache helicopters together with any needed components. The price for these was US$620 million.

Singapore is a tiny state, but compared to her defense budget of NT$146 billion last year, Taiwan's was only NT$265 billion. If you factor in the difference in the size of population, territory, the state budget, and the fact that China is constantly applying pressure and could attack at any moment, how can you quibble about a paltry NT$33 billion a year?

It is natural to want peace. The only battles Taiwan has fought over the years are those to secure its own national sovereignty and protect the rights of its people. We have never shown any intention of invading any other country, and are constantly having to deal with the threat from China. The possession of defensive weapons is imperative, and the only way Taiwan can continue to defend itself is if it can upgrade its military capability through this arms procurement.

Before World War II, former UK prime minister Neville Chamberlain, who would never leave his house without an umbrella regardless of whether it was raining or not, tried again and again to maintain peace and refused to act as Adolf Hitler invaded neighboring countries, such as Austria and Czechoslovakia. This led to the Luftwaffe's bombardment of London, with bombs raining down on the capital every second of every minute for 24 hours, trying to wear the city down.

This was how Hitler responded to Chamberlain's calls for peace. Now the academics from Academia Sinica, lodged high in their ivory tower, seem oblivious to the transparent scheming of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in its plan to reduce Taiwan to a mere local government under their control -- something that even the person on the street is aware of.

The current arms procurement plan has been devised to counter China's upgrading of its modern warships, Kilo-class submarines and Sukhoi jet fighters. As the need to purchase these weapons originated in China, any protest march would be better held in Beijing. If this happened, we might well see people like Lao Sze-kwang and General Hsu Li-nung finding themselves arrested, and myself, or other members of the Taiwan Southern Society would be appealing to the international community to see that these individuals did not fall victim to abuses, as part of our obligation to ensure the preservation of universal human rights.

Cheng Ying-yao is a professor in the Graduate Institute of Education of National Sun Yat-sen University; Lee Chung-pan is a professor in the department of marine environment and engineering; Kuo Feng-yang is a professor in the department of information management and Chen Yang-yih is director of the department of marine environment and engineering. Hsiao Hsin-yi is a professor in the department of General Education of Kaohsiung Medical University and Chen Cheng-chung is an assistant professor in the department of medical sociology at the university. Shen Chien-chuan is an assistant professor in the College of Marine Engineering of National Kaohsiung Marine University. Chiang Wei-wen is an assistant professor in the department of Taiwanese literature at National Cheng Kung University. Hu Wei-wen is an assistant professor in the department of vehicle engineering at National Pingtung University of Science and Technology. Lin Tie-hsiung is an assistant professor in the department of Civil and Ecological Engineering at I-Shou University. Wang Yi-feng is an assistant professor in the department of leisure management at Southern Taiwanese University of Technology. Chen Shun-sheng is a professor of neurology.

Disregarding public protests that the March 19 Shooting Truth Investigation Special Committee Statute is unconstitutional, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and People First Party (PFP) on Monday nominated nine members to a committee investigating the shooting of the president and vice president.

The committee is now ready to operate starting next Monday, raising fears that the nation may once again be torn by confrontation between the blue and green camps.

The statute absurdly specifies that the committee will have 17 members drawn from outside the legislature or other government agencies, based on the number of seats the political parties hold in the legislature. All members can instruct prosecutors to search and investigate whoever is suspected or accused of being involved in the shooting. Those who refuse to cooperate shall be given a fine of no less than NT$100,000, and can be fined repeatedly. If the court's final ruling is different from the committee's investigation results, the committee can request a retrial.

We all know that not even the minister of justice, the public prosecutor general, or even the president of the Judicial Yuan can tell prosecutors or judges how to carry out their investigations, prosecutions or trials. Yet this "special committee" not only enjoys the power to conduct judicial investigations, but also the investigatory powers that constitutionally belong to the government's administrative and monitoring agencies. The committee even has the power to interfere with judicial rulings.

Faced with this nonsensical law, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Taiwan Solidarity Union are refusing to participate. As a result, all committee members belong to the pan-blue camp, such as Shih Chi-yang, president of the Judicial Yuan under the KMT regime, and Chai Tsung-chuen, a former Control Yuan member. Thus the committee members all share the pan-blue camp's political ideology, and its "truth" will be as blue as its membership. It will not be an impartial truth that can be accepted by the people.

After the presidential election in March, the street demonstrations willfully and arbitrarily stirred up by the pan-blues caused public support to plummet for the pan-blue camp in general and the PFP in particular. Yet the pan-blue camp continues unperturbed, inciting demonstrations against the arms procurement budget with the excuse that they are looking after the public's hard-earned money. They say that the Truth Committee "is a reasonable mechanism that prevents the DPP from blocking the search for the truth." Do they really think that such far-fetched excuses will deceive the people?

According to reports, funds are already being raised to support prosecutors, other officials and members of the public who are unwilling to be co-opted into this "pan-blue investigation committee." The funds will be used to pay the fines for non-compliance to underline that this pan-blue organization is unconstitutional and absurd. That funds are already being raised for this purpose indicates broad dissatisfaction with the committee, and also highlights the necessity for confrontation between the green and the pan-blue camps.

The most bewildering aspect of the pan-blue camp's policies is that its opposition to the arms budget will weaken the nation's defensive capability, while its special commission threatens the judicial system and disrupts social order. China can only be delighted by these prospects, so the pan-blue camp seems to be less fighting for truth than seeking the nation's downfall.

PROMOTION NEEDED: With more than 65 percent of investment going to China in the first quarter, the strategy to diversify to Southeast Asia doesn't seem to be working

Two years after President Chen Shui-bian reintroduced the government's "go south" policy, many think the strategy lies in tatters.

The policy, first announced in 1994, aims to lessen Taiwan's economic dependence on China by encouraging the country's businessmen to invest in Southeast Asian countries.

In July 2002, Chen urged people not to "hold any illusions about China" and said Taiwan's "go south" policy would be further highlighted.

"With the government's backing, Taiwanese enterprises should look to Southeast Asia's potential instead of seeing China as the only market in the world," he said at the time.

But last year, Taiwan's overall investment in seven ASEAN countries -- Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam and Cambodia -- reached only US$937 million, according to Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA) statistics.

During the same period, the nation's investment in China amounted to US$7.7 billion, or 53.66 percent of total foreign investment.

Moreover, for the first quarter of this year, Taiwan's investment in China climbed to 67.43 percent of its total foreign investment, the ministry's Industrial Development and Investment Center's numbers show.

According to the center's statistics, investment in the seven ASEAN economies peaked between 1994 and 1997. Taiwan poured more than US$4 billion each year into the region during the period.

From 1998 to 2001, investment dropped and fluctuated between US$1 billion and US$2 billion per year.

When Chen reiterated the government's determination to continue the "go south" policy in 2002, Taiwan's investment in the region had plummeted to US$692 million -- the lowest point since 1994.

Still, in the APEC summit in Mexico in October 2002, the Sultan of Brunei and Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo welcomed Taiwan's "go south" policy.

They expressed their appreciation for Taiwan's initiative to Lee Yuan-tseh, the nation's representative at the meeting.

At the end of that year, former foreign minister Eugene Chien was confronted in the legislature with a report by the Council for Economic Planning and Development, which said Taiwan's investment in Southeast Asia had fallen dramatically.

"Southeast Asian countries are our best neighbors. We'll suffer a great loss if we fail to conduct close economic exchanges with them," he said in defense of the policy.

"During my recent trip to Malaysia, a Taiwanese businessman working there asked me whether the government is still seriously pursuing the `go south' policy," Tsai Horng-ming, deputy general secretary of the Chinese National Federation of Industries, said earlier this week.

The policy is not a complete failure, but its impact has been limited, according to Tsai.

According to the MOEA's Bureau of Foreign Trade, bilateral trade volume between Taiwan and ASEAN reached US$34.88 billion last year, a 112.2 percent growth compared with trade volume in 1993.

Tsai, however, said few businessmen personally felt they had benefited from the policy.

"Businesspeople do not benefit much from the policy. We don't have enough information about Southeast Asia and are unaware of market opportunities there," he said.

Linguistic and cultural barriers have also posed huge challenges for Taiwanese businessmen considering investment in Southeast Asia.

"We don't speak their languages and are unfamiliar with their cultures. Things are much easier in China because people there speak Chinese," Tsai said.

Tsai, who urged the government to reexamine its "go south" policy after the 1997 financial crisis, wrote an article asking the government to offer information about Southeast Asia on a regular basis so that businessmen could "make the right judgment on the markets."

In Taiwan, information on Southeast Asia was scarce. The government needed to strengthen businessmen's understanding of the region's local cultures, societies and customs in promoting the "go south" policy, he said.

"Moreover, the best way to do business in Southeast Asia is through collective investment," he suggested.

The government should set up more industrial zones in Southeast Asian countries, recruit Taiwanese businesspeople to invest there, and help them get necessary support from the host countries, Tsai said.

Expanding markets in the host countries and cooperating with local governments to improve the countries' infrastructure, he added, were also vital steps Taiwan needs to take in order to make the "go south" policy successful.

To keep the "go south" policy going, he said, the government needs to come up with a thorough plan.

That is what the government has been striving to do, said Paul Wang, director of the Department of Bilateral Trade Relations at the Bureau of Foreign Trade.

Acknowledging criticism of the "go south" policy, Wang, who is in charge of the country's trade in Asia, Oceania and the Middle East, has not given up hope of reviving the strategy.

"We know most of our businessmen would choose to invest in China instead of Southeast Asia not only because China's labor is cheap but also because our cultures are similar," Wang said.

China routinely dispatches high-profile officials to attract Taiwanese investment. The country's attraction is almost irresistible, Wang said.

So can the "go south" policy help the government reduce the risk of concentrating too much investment in China?

When the policy was launched in 1994, it was meant to reap political and diplomatic benefits for the country through strengthening trade ties with Southeast Asian nations.

The limited success the policy had over the past decade, however, has forced the government to consider a more practical line.

"We now focus on meeting our businessmen's needs," said Wang, displaying papers that provide detailed information about doing business in New Zealand, Australia and ASEAN states.

ASEAN nations have a 500 million strong population and is too big a market to be ignored, he said.

Establishing more industrial zones for Taiwanese businessmen in Southeast Asia is one option, Wang said.

The bureau is also conducting research on each individual Southeast Asian economy in order to find out the most suitable industries for investment.

For example, its initial findings showed that in Vietnam, textile industry, car components and accessories and electronic products are potentially profitable areas for Taiwanese businessmen to work in.

The research recommended investment in Indonesia's scooter accessories and components production, Malaysia's food industry, Australia's biotechnology, cars and mines, and Thailand's agriculture and food processing industries.

The bureau plans to hold seminars to introduce businessmen to market opportunities once the research is complete, Wang said.

The bureau will continue pushing for ministerial-level meetings on economic cooperation and use the World Trade Organization to help Taiwanese businessmen seek investment opportunities and remove trade obstacles.

Filas Chen, a section chief at Wang's department, was once posted to Thailand and Malaysia to help Taiwanese businessmen.

The MOEA usually sends one to three trade officials to each Southeast Asian country to counsel Taiwanese businessmen.

"However, our businessmen need to find the property and workers needed to establish factories by themselves. This is beyond our power," Filas Chen said.

The government has negotiated with several countries in order to secure investment in turbulent times.

"We reached a deal that if political unrest breaks out, our businessmen would be able to pull out their investment unscathed," he said.

The ministry has made some effort to help businesspeople learn local languages. It once opened some language courses for businessmen.

Filas Chen said that when he was in Thailand, Taiwan's representative office there produced tapes to teach businesspeople basic Thai.

Despite all the government's efforts, Taiwanese businessmen still swarm to China and largely ignore Southeast Asia, Filas Chen said.

"Ninety out of 100 businessmen in Taiwan would choose China rather than Southeast Asia, but we hope they will at least give Southeast Asia some thought," he added.

"China is such a big opportunity. Few can remove their eyes from the `big cake.' We hope our investment will not concentrate on China -- but we know it will likely continue to be so," Filas Chen said.

The government, he added, in the country's interest, still needs to do its best to diversify investment risk, even though it has encountered frustration over the "go south" policy.

Yan Jiann-fa, vice chairman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Research and Planning Committee, said the bureau has shifted the "go south" policy in the right direction.

"We should not aim high. We need to be practical and think about how to help our businessmen make profits," Yan said.

The political atmosphere in Southeast Asia, he said, has changed a great deal since Taiwan implemented its "go south" policy.

In the 1990s, some Southeast Asian nations were still willing to receive former president Lee Teng-hui.

Today, due to heightening cross-strait tensions, Southeast Asian countries no longer welcome visits by Taiwanese leaders.

"It is almost impossible for President Chen to travel to the region now," Yan added.

Chen's announcement of the reaffirmation of the "go south" policy two years ago was followed by a flurry of high-ranking Taiwanese officials' visits to Southeast Asia, New Zealand and Australia.

In August 2002, Vice President Annette Lu paid a surprise visit to Jakarta, where she was denied entrance and transferred to Bali.

Eric Teo Chu Cheow, Council Secretary of the Singapore Institute for International Affairs, went so far as to conclude that this "important shift in Southeast Asia could spell the complete demise of Taiwan's `go south' policy altogether."

In an interview with Radio Singapore International in June, the business consultant said "ASEAN-China relations have clearly consolidated to the detriment of Taiwan, Japan and the US."

"The successful strengthening of ASEAN-China relations, despite their recent historical animosities and economic difficulties, will now constitute a real challenge to Taiwan's foreign policy, as cross-strait relations remain uncertain and tense, especially after President Chen Shui-bian's inauguration for a second term in office," he said.

But while Teo believes the "go south" policy is going nowhere now, Yan stressed that the policy -- which he called "a grand strategy" -- still has a chance to open new doors for Taiwan if brought onto the right path.

"In the past, we hoped to turn economic power into political and diplomatic gains, but that was very difficult," Yan said.

Taiwan cannot expect Southeast Asian countries will listen to it just because it poured capital into the region, he added.

To continue the "go south" policy, the government should stop pushing for leaders' visits that are mainly meant to boost visibility, he suggested.

What the government can do, he said, is to create a favorable investment environment for Taiwanese businessmen in Southeast Asia.

"We should try to let our businessmen feel at home there. We can do this," Yan said.

The outstanding work performance of Vietnamese women such as those above has been highly praised by Taiwanese businesspeople currently operating in the country. Taiwanese investment to Southeast Asian countries such as Vietnam has not increased as much as was hoped with the ``go south'' strategy, with the lion's share of the nation's investment still headed to China.
PHOTO: KAO CHIA-HO, TAIPEI TIMES