In the last few days certain comments by Premier Yu Shyi-kun and Minister of Foreign Affairs Mark Chen (
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 (
In July, when Lee Hsien Loong (
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 (
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.
TRANSLATED BY IAN BARTHOLOMEW AND PAUL COOPER
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS