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
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS