Taiwanese culture on Oct 03, 2004

Media can't see forest for the trees

In the last few days certain comments by Premier Yu Shyi-kun and Minister of Foreign Affairs Mark Chen have received considerable attention throughout the nation. In what he called his "balance of terror" concept, Yu said to China, "If you fire 100 missiles at me, I should be able to fire at least 50 at you. If you launch an attack on Taipei or Kaohsiung, I should be able to launch a counterattack on Shanghai." Chen criticized Singapore's recent kowtowing to China, using choice words from the local vernacular and saying the state was "no bigger than a piece of snot" and was currently "holding China's lam pa [testicles]" -- a Taiwanese colloquialism for currying favor with someone.

Taiwan is a democratic country, and there is nothing unusual about hearing all manner of conflicting opinions and points of view. Nevertheless, it does seem that the majority of people criticizing these comments choose to blame Taiwan, and hold back any criticisms of China. In doing so they are concentrating on trifling shortcomings, and failing to give adequate attention to the nation's broader interests.

People would do well to take note of how these biases have come into play in the debate over Yu and Chen's latest remarks, and contemplate the implications.

The debate over both of these comments has centered around the cross-strait situation, and its implications for the continued existence of Taiwan. The most critical factor here is the implications of Yu and Chen's comments for our national interests, and whether the concept of the "balance of terror" and the upbraiding of Singapore will turn out to be positive or negative for Taiwan.

The second consideration to be made is whether the debate itself is worthwhile. From the rumblings that these words have stirred up in the media, and from the deluge of partisan debate that they have precipitated, it seems that the media are more interested in matters of etiquette and propriety than in a serious debate on whether Taiwan should proceed with a balance of terror policy, or whether Singapore should have been berated for its continued admonishments of Taiwan on the international scene.

The media's handling of all this, put politely, demonstrates that they can't see the forest for the trees. Put more bluntly, one could say they are mistaken in terms of their attitude and standpoint, and that they are not thinking of the survival of the country or its people.

Frankly speaking, Yu's words were extremely incisive, and Chen's language was rather coarse. Government officials are representatives of the nation, and therefore should try to be more careful with their choice of words if they are to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings and resulting diversions from the matter at hand.

That said, national security and the national interest should be the main consideration, and not how imprudent any given remark may be. If the underlying policy is correct, it should not be overshadowed by such careless comments. And if you look at the gist of what Yu and Chen were saying, you can see that they do take into account what is best for the nation. Perhaps, then, they should not be judged so harshly by some in the Taiwanese press.

So, in what way were their comments wrong? It seems that Yu is saying that Taiwan has yet to achieve a "balance of terror." If it had, would China be following its policy of intimidation against Taiwan, or holding guided missile drills? If Taiwan had indeed achieved this balance, there would be no question mark over national security today, the nation's people would be able to feel secure, and war across the Strait could be avoided. Isn't this in the interests of Taiwan, East Asia, and in fact the whole world?

But were Yu's remarks about the balance of terror appropriate? Some people hold that his remarks merely serve to increase tensions across the Strait, and could lead the country into a drawn-out period of mutual escalation with China, akin to the US-Soviet arms race during the Cold War.

This argument does not really hold water, as the comparison with the USSR is a false one. The Soviet Union was an amalgamation of states comprising different ethnic groups, religions, cultures and languages, sprawling over a vast territory in Eurasia, held together by a dictatorial power. The ethnic and religious divisions between them led to the break-up of the union as soon as the Soviets began to lose their grip on power. This had nothing to do with a balance of terror.

Second, during the Cold War, the US and the Soviets had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire world several times over. There was no shortage of ambitious individuals in the Communist world, and yet World War III never occurred. One of the main reasons for this was the "balance of terror" achieved through the doctrine of "mutually assured destruction."

China's Taiwan Affairs Office responded to Yu's "balance of terror" comments by saying that they were seriously provocative and tantamount to a call for war, and also that they demonstrated that Taiwan wanted to use weapons to seek independence. Apparently Yu has trodden on China's toes with this idea.

Mark Chen's remark about Singapore "holding China's lam pa" was also an expression of the nation's frustration with the political oppression that it constantly endures. Not only did Singapore, which purports to be China's friend, not speak up in defense of a just cause, but instead criticized Taiwan for China's sake, dealing a double blow to the nation.

Singapore has long served as an ambassador between Taiwan and China. But ever since former president Lee Teng-hui began to promote democratization and localization, the paths of Taiwan and authoritarian Singapore began to diverge. Singapore, with its fantasies about the China market, began to tilt toward China.

In July, when Lee Hsien Loong, who was then about to take over as Singapore's Prime Minister, visited Taiwan, he angered China in the process. Soon after, in order to heal the rift, Singapore began a campaign of criticism against Taiwan.

During Singapore's National Day rally, Lee criticized Taiwan in his official address, saying that "If Taiwan goes for independence, Singapore will not recognize it. In fact, no Asian country will recognize it. Nor will European countries. China will fight. Win or lose, Taiwan will be devastated."

Lee went on to say that if Taiwan sparked a confrontation, Singapore would not be able to support Taiwan. Then, on Sept. 24, Singapore's Foreign Minister George Yeo went too far by telling the UN General Assembly that the push toward independence by certain groups in Taiwan is most dangerous because it will lead to war with China and drag in other countries, putting the stability of the region at risk.

Yeo even criticized former president Lee Teng-hui for styling himself as a Moses bringing his people out of Egypt in an interview with a Japanese magazine, saying that this exacerbated cross-strait tensions.

When such careless comments criticizing Taiwan's domestic affairs are made by a foreign minister of a supposedly friendly country to the UN General Assembly simply to curry favor with China, it is no wonder that Mark Chen lost his temper and let loose with some coarse language. Even if we accept that Chen's remarks were inappropriately coarse, are they actually untrue?

The fact that Yu and Chen's remarks have been given such sensationalized coverage only goes to show the distorted attitudes of a minority of people in Taiwan. From rejection of the arms procurement plan, a balance of terror and coarse language, they put all the blame on Taiwan. They think that the though the nation is threatened with invasion, it must not arm itself in response; that it can be humiliated on the international stage but cannot talk back.

Such people want to create the impression that if there is a conflict across the Strait, it is Taiwan's fault. If China invades, it is Taiwan who provoked them.

But if Taiwan does not make an effort to clarify the situation, responding to both international and domestic slanderers, then it will be labelled a troublemaker and a warmonger. And if this happens, the nation's 23 million people will never find salvation.

An open letter to Singapore

This letter is to protest your Taiwan-bashing comments at the UN. There is no reason to say, as your foreign minister did, that an independence platform escalates the tension between Taiwan and China. You even criticize former president Lee Teng-hui's efforts to solve Taiwan's problems.

I doubt that any reputable nation would have blamed former US president John Kennedy for "escalating tension between Russia and the US" during the Cuban missile crisis.

China has prevented Taiwan from having normal diplomatic relations with other nations or having a say in the community of nations, including access to the World Health Organization and the International Red Cross -- although such access would have been especially useful during the 921Earthquake and last year's SARS outbreak.

I do not understand how you in Singapore can forget your own struggle to break away from Malaysia. Taiwan has shown its tolerance and restraint in the face of the mischief that China has dished out. Since the Republic of China (ROC) fled to Taiwan, the Taiwanese people accepted the new immigrants and most Chinese have accepted Taiwan as well, although indigenous languages and identity were suppressed. Human rights for all did not exist. President Chen Shui-bian, Vice President Annette Lu and others were jailed for taking part in rallies against the ROC regime which Lien Chan and James Soong are still a part of.

Nevertheless, the Taiwanese people threw off the shackles of the old totalitarian regime to create a democracy. Taiwan has more to contribute to the world in this regard. Indeed, Taiwan even assists in your nation's military training.

With friends like you, Singapore, it must be hard for Chen -- and the Taiwanese people -- to tell friend from foe.

Rao Kok-sia   Boston

Mark Chen has got a pair

Foreign Affairs Minister Mark Chen knew what he was talking about when he said Singapore is "holding China's lam pa" -- a Taiwanese expression for currying favor with someone. In politics, it is common practice to say something true and then turn around and apologize. The apology meant nothing. The main thing is that Chen got his message across to the public and the public received it. Chen said what he wanted the public to know. He did it precisely and beautifully and in a Taiwanese way.

Chen minister is the most courageous foreign minister since the one who presided over the ROC's dismissal from the UN in 1971.

Ken Huang   Memphis, Tennessee

China fever,not weapons plan, is the real problem

By Huang Tien-lin

After 11 Academia Sinica members publicly criticized the proposed arms procurement plan, those who oppose the plan launched a large demonstration on Sept. 25. They stressed that although the budget of NT$610.8 billion (US$18 billion) will be spread over 15 years, the annual expenditure of NT$40.72 billion will crowd out other domestic expenditures, decreasing Taiwan's GNP by about 0.27 percent.

Strangely, they did not mention the nation's massive investment in China (about NT$408 billion per year), which is the equivalent of 4 percent of the nation's GDP. Not to mention that Taiwan's total investment in China over the past decade already exceeds NT$5.44 trillion.

The yearly investment of NT$408 billion in China is not a small amount, and it is 10 times Taiwan's proposed weapons purchase budget per year. By the opposition's calculations, such investment may decrease the country's GNP by about 2.7 percent. Therefore, if they really care about people's livelihood, and the sustainable development of Taiwan's economy, they should oppose the enormous capital outflow to China first, not the arms procurement plan.

People may argue that the national defense budget is considered a "non-productive expenditure," while investing in China is considered an economic activity. But if we calmly examine the situation, we will find that a large portion of the budget will circulate back to Taiwan and stimulate domestic demand and consumption. On the contrary, experience tells us that the capital of the Taiwanese businesspeople operating in China has never flowed back over the past 14 years. Such an investment pattern is not helpful to Taiwan's economy, and it only strengthens China's national power.

Moreover, those who advocate "marching west" (to China) often say that "Taiwan's trade surplus with China has exceeded US$200 billion in recent years, and the nation will suffer a trade deficit without its large exports to China." The fact is, Taiwan has given up its US, European and Southeastern Asian markets in an effort to march west.

In particular, the nation's market share in the US has already dropped from 5.8 percent in 1987 to 2.8 percent in 2002. The reduction of exports to these places is estimated at US$300 billion, which is much higher than Taiwan's trade surplus with China.

Recently, some also said that Taiwan can avoid the "hollowing out" of its industry only by using relatively cheap Chinese resources. Experiment is the best way to test a theory. The 14-year experiment has come up with an answer: Taiwan's investment of NT$5.44 trillion in China has failed to boost our competitiveness or economy, which is now inferior to that of South Korea.

The investment of South Korea in China is less than one-tenth of Taiwan's. However, since it does not solely rely on cheap Chinese resources, it has advanced its technologies, and is catching up with, or even surpassing Taiwan in terms of its average GNP. Have those who oppose the arms procurement plan noticed that?

If we really care about public welfare and the nation's economy, we should oppose "China fever." If we can reduce our excessive investment in China, we will be able to stimulate various domestic economic activities, increase tax revenues, resolve the current financial difficulties, lower the unemployment rate and raise national income. The annual weapons purchase budget of NT$40.72 billion will then no longer be a problem.

Taiwan's economic and fiscal problems lie in the outflow of money to China, not the arms procurement plan. The people who oppose the plan should have held a demonstration in Beijing, not Taipei.

Huang Tien-lin is a national policy adviser to the president.