Singapore has betrayed Taiwan on Oct 06, 2004

Singapore has betrayed Taiwan

By Chen Hurng-yu

Following the Asian financial crisis, a marked change has taken place in Singapore's East Asia policy: it no longer hides its pro-China attitudes. Having seen the inability of East Asian countries to respond to the financial crisis, Singapore began casting glances at China when the Chinese economy was further stabilized during the crisis. The city-state took the opportunity to play up the importance of the rising Chinese economy, and its leaders have often used this situation to warn Taiwan that "time is not on Taiwan's side."

Singapore's leaders, in particular during the tenure of former prime minister Goh Chok Tong, ignored the multifaceted good relations between Singapore and Taiwan and instead openly said that Taiwan is not a nation. As the local saying goes, "you can dig deep in soft soil." Taking silence for weakness, Singapore has thus taken another dig at Taiwan by further intensifying its criticism.

Lee Hsien Loong took over as Singapore's prime minister on Aug. 12. In a nationally televised address on Aug. 22, he commented on the situation in the Taiwan Strait, saying that "any movement toward independence on Taiwan's part can only be detrimental to Singapore and the region. If Taiwan moves toward independence, Singapore will not recognize it. In fact, no Asian or European country will recognize it. China will start a war, and regardless of the outcome, Taiwan will suffer severely."

This tune was recently repeated in the UN General Assembly by Singapore's foreign minister. When Singaporean leaders discuss Taiwan loudly and widely, don't they know they are intervening in this nation's domestic affairs? What business do they have discussing Taiwan's domestic mat-ters? According to the logic of Singapore's leaders, the reason for doing so is that they want to main-tain stability in the Asia-Pacific region. This is nothing less than a confusion of cause and effect.

If such logic is acceptable, then Singapore should never have left the Federation of Malay States in 1965, since that certainly was something that could destabilize East Asia. Don't forget that Singapore then was considered the Cuba of East Asia. At the time, no East Asian nation, nor the US or the UK, opposed Singaporean independence on the grounds that it would threaten regional stability.

Nor should we forget that Sing-apore at the time also was trying to dispel suspicions of being a fifth column working for China overseas. It therefore maintained a low diplomatic profile, saying that it would establish diplomatic relations with Indonesia before it would with China, and tried to advocate the involvement of the great powers to maintain East Asian stability.

Now, however, Singapore has changed this policy and is completely biased toward China, not only lobbying other countries and bringing China into the Asian Free Trade Area, but playing up the size of the Chinese market and urging businesspeople to invest there. Singapore aims to become China's spokesman and standard-bearer in Asia by attacking Taiwan.

The main reason behind Singapore's change of policy is that its economy has reached a bottle-neck. What's more, the prospects of the Malaysian economy are looking good, with the electronics industry and others suddenly performing well. The new Malaysian leadership is implementing aggres-sive economic policies, and all evidence shows that the Malaysian economy is revving up and getting ready to take off. In addition, the democratization of Indonesia has been successful, and the succession of a popularly elected leader might kick-start its economy.

Whether politically or economically, these factors will put pressure on Singapore. The nation's only way to break out of this difficult situation is to hook its economy to China's economy. Doing so, however, will lead Singapore down the road most detrimental to its regional standing. The negative impact of neighboring countries' suspicions toward Singapore resulting from its China policies will outweigh the economic benefits of relying on Beijing.

While Singapore's past policy of maintaining balanced relations with all major powers was praised and supported by the other East Asian states, the total bias toward China in recent years has already become a source of Indonesian discontent. Malaysia has a long history of being displeased with Singapore, and the two often fail to see eye to eye on different issues. In the past, Singapore relied on maintaining a balance of power in its relationships with the major powers in order to survive.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US continues to be influential in East Asia. Singapore has also tried to cozy up to the US by allowing it to set up the logistics headquarters for its Seventh Fleet there. This situation has changed, and we should pay attention to the question of whether Singapore's introduction of Chinese power into East Asia will lead to a power realignment.

As a small nation, Singapore will not speak rashly in the international arena. Evidence clearly suggests that Singapore is trying to use China to improve its own international prestige and gain economic benefits.

Looking back at Singapore's contacts with China over the past few years, we might ask whether Singapore will get its way. The evidence is clear and does not need restating. Singaporean leaders are clear on the answer in their mind.

Just looking at the longstanding good relationship between the Taiwanese and Singaporean governments and peoples, Singapore has now completely disregarded the feelings of the Taiwan-ese people and on several occasions issued statements interfering with Taiwan's domestic affairs. This is very regrettable.

Finally, it will be easy to guess the outcome if Singapore, led by an ethnic Chinese government, continues to introduce Chinese power. An ethnic Chinese government has never been able to survive in East Asia.

Chen Hurng-yu is a history professor at National Chengchi University.

Washington says no need to rethink `one China' policy

By Melody Chen
STAFF REPORTER

The US government said it has no plans to alter its "one China" policy in response to senior presidential advisor Koo Kwang-ming's full-page advertisements in US and Taiwanese newspapers which urged the US to reconsider the policy.

Koo's advertisement, entitled "US adherence to one China policy only benefits communist dictators: Let Taiwan speak out for a lasting peace," appeared in the Washington Post and the New York Times on Monday and in the Taipei Times yesterday.

Adam Ereli, deputy spokesman of the US Department of State, said at a Monday briefing that Washington's China policy remained the same.

"There is no cause for rethinking it," he said.

Koo, in his advertisement, pointed to what he called contradictions in US policy.

"While the US is telling the Taiwanese to increase their arms purchases to deter a Communist takeover, it is also telling the same Taiwanese that they cannot have their own country, their own Constitution, their own national anthem, or even a flag of their own choosing ... in the name of maintaining the status quo," the advertisement read.

Victor Chin, director-general of the foreign ministry's Department of North American Affairs, said Koo had expressed his personal opinion in the ad.

"We did not know in advance he was going to place the advertisement. His article does not represent the ministry's stance," he said.

However, Chin said, the "one China" policy had indeed caused a lot of confusion.

"The US' `one China' policy is very different from Beijing's `one China' principle," he said.

Many countries adhere to the "one China" policy, which has a huge impact on Taiwan's diplomacy, Chin said.

Taiwan's relations with the US encounter many limitations because of the "one China" policy, he said. "We hope the US and other countries can be more practical in handling relations with us."

Different US government agencies have different interpretations of the "one China" policy, but it is unlikely that Washington will change the policy in the near future, said Lo Chih-cheng, executive director of the Institute for National Policy Research.

Lo said the US had clearly stated that it wished China and Taiwan to maintain the status quo.

"The US would shoot itself in the foot if it changes its `one China' policy," Lo said.

Washington does not see contradictions in its arms sales to Taiwan while warning the country against pursuing independence, he said.

"The US wants peace and stability [across the Taiwan Strait]. For Washington, the two policies are complementary rather than contradictory," Lo said.

Koo is currently on a trip overseas and was not available for comment yesterday.

In his advertisement, Koo quoted passages from the US Declaration of Independence.

He asked if the US had departed from the founding spirit of its core democratic values and appealed for Washington to support for Taiwan as it moves toward becoming a new country.

Chen blasts `lawless' probe

OUT OF ORDER: The president used a meeting with a US legal expert to denounce the probe, saying it was unconstitutional and objectionable to its own convener

By Huang Tai-lin
STAFF REPORTER

President Chen Shui-bian yesterday launched a direct attack on the special committee investigating the March 19 assassination attempt, branding it "utterly lawless."

Chen went on the offensive while receiving Jerome Cohen, professor of law at New York University's School of Law and an expert on legal systems in East Asia, during a half-hour meeting at the Presidential Office.

"As [we] did not forge any ballots on March 20 [the day of the presidential election], we were not afraid of a recount," Chen told Cohen. "As [we] did not stage the March 19 shooting, we are not afraid of an investigation.

"We welcome an investigation and support an investigation, but any investigation must not proceed in violation of the Constitution," Chen said. "This is an issue of constitutional order."

"[The committee] is absurd and absolutely lawless," Chen added.

Amid calls for the controversial committee's demise from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), the March 19 Shooting Truth Investigation Special Committee convened on Monday.

Shih Chi-yang, former president of the Judicial Yuan, was elected convener of the committee by the 10 members nominated by the pan-blue opposition. Five members were selected by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), four by the People First Party and one by independent legislators.

Noting that Shih on Monday had suggested that the statute forming the committee be amended, Chen said this proved that the status of the committee was problematic. Even the committee's own convenor had suggested there was a need to amend the law, he said.

"Can the investigation continue under circumstances in which even the committee's convener himself thinks the statute has problems?" Chen asked.

Chen also asked for Cohen's opinion on the matter, but Cohen said that he had just received the information from Chen and would provide a response only after further study.

The March 19 Shooting Truth Investigation Special Committee Statute grants committee members the powers of prosecutors and exempts them from restrictive provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Law of National Secrets Protection and other laws, Chen said.

Article 8 of the statute stipulates that organizations, groups or individuals who refuse to appear can be fined up to NT$1 million, jailed for up to three years or prevented from leaving the country.

According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, a subpoena is needed to summon an individual, a warrant is needed to search someone's property, and specific documents are required to take someone into custody, Chen said.

"The powers bestowed on this committee by this statute, however, are completely unlimited, restricted by no law and it can take someone into custody without subpoenas, search warrants or other documents.

"It is regrettable that today, in Taiwan in the 21st century, some will go as far as acting in a way that is unacceptable to all just because of an election," Chen said.

Cohen was director of East Asian Legal Studies at Harvard Law School from 1964 to 1979.

The roots of the conflict over arms

By Ku Er-teh

From the idea of exchanging pearl milk tea for weapons, to the anti-arms-purchase rally, to debates over "striking Shanghai with missiles," to the recent attention over whether President Chen Shui-bian and People First Party Chairman James Soong will debate in congress, the controversy surrounding the arms purchase is snowballing. But is the truth being unearthed through such debates?

By using comics to promote the theme "love Taiwan, protect our home," the Ministry of National Defense had originally hoped that easy-to-understand slogans such as "one cup of pearl milk tea in exchange for national security" would win people's hearts. The idea was intended to simplify a complicated matter. Little did they know that just the opposite would be accomplished.

Perhaps those who oppose the arms purchase felt the ministry had insulted them by underestimating their intelligence. The ministry's mistake is understandable, as it represented the thinking of the military's bureaucracy. Political issues are beyond the grasp of soldiers to begin with. A campaign launched to convince the public about the need for arms purchases from such one-track minds can't encompass the political complications entailed.

What are the political complications? Premier Yu Shyi-kun said he suspected that the 11 Academia Sinica fellows who signed a petition opposing the arms purchase "[had] problems in terms of ideologies and national identity." His statement was strongly criticized. If Yu's statement could be slightly modified, as follows, his intended message may be more accurately conveyed: Yu suspects that "they differ from the ruling party, in terms of ideology and national identification."

Actually, in the petition, the fellows pointed out that Taiwan is facing "a social crisis in the `sense of community.'" The fellows and Yu obviously lacked a sense of shared community, leading him to doubt their views.

Discrepancies in feelings about national identity come from different levels of society. For example, the cross-strait peace promotion alliance organized by private social groups oppose the arms purchase from an anti-war standpoint, believing erroneously that an arms race could trigger war and that the cross-strait issue requires a political resolution. Obviously, on cross-strait issues, these groups don't have any sense of identification with the ruling party.

Of course, neither the defense ministry nor soldiers should interfere with the making of fundamental cross-strait policy. However, it is worth noting that many retired generals and military officers also signed the petition.

From the military's standpoint, current and retired personnel should support the arms purchase. The bigger the budget the military can get, the better. Under the circumstances, it is only natural that all military personnel should support the purchase.

But why don't the retired officers and generals support it? Did they have a drastic change of heart upon retirement and become supporters of peace, giving up long-held thinking on national security strategies? Surely, no one is going to believe that is the case.

It is because they differ from Yu in their sense of national identification. In the minds of these people, who are predominantly Mainlander and who embrace the Greater China ideology, the Demo-cratic Progressive Party (DPP) government is purchasing arms to push for Taiwan independence. This is of course at odds with their beliefs and sentiments.

So it is that Yu says these old generals "have problems" in terms of their ideologies and national identification, and vice versa.

If we continue to shy away from examining the issues of ideology, identification and values underlying the arms purchase, no rational discussion can be had on the matter, let alone expecting two politicians -- Chen and Soong -- to reach any conclusion through a debate.

Just as with the "319 Shooting Truth Investigation Special Committee," while the opposition and ruling camps righteously debate legal and constitutional principles, the more fundamental problem of discrepancies in identification are creating a sense of mistrust between the two sides, causing each to question the other's character and motives.

It does not take much to say there's a "social crisis in the `sense of community,'" but how many people are truly willing to sincerely face the reasons behind the crisis? A resolution on ethnic diversity and national unity was unanimously passed within the DPP. The opposition did not oppose this. But will the two sides really refrain from provoking each other?

What the arms purchase issue boils down to is differences in identification. Rational communication is badly needed, as the two sides lack common values and a sense of trust on the issue. The only option left is to resort to a power struggle to determine the outcome in a cruel and realistic manner.

Ku Er-teh is a freelance writer.