The recent supplication of Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (
But we can easily see that Lee's words are empty. He stated that no European or Asian country would recognize an independent Taiwan. How can he know this? Certainly he does not. He was only making the statement to placate the frothy, emotional ultranationalism that has reared its ugly head in Beijing these past few years. That part of Lee's statement, and probably the rest as well, can be relegated to the junkyard of political propaganda.
But if we look at the substance of the situation, we see that Singapore has built facilities to service aircraft carriers, obviously for US use. And Singapore has an agreement to provide logistical support to the US military in times of conflict, without regard to the identity of the other parties in the conflict. Further, both Singapore and the US are basing equipment and supplies in northern Australia for joint use in a Pacific conflict. Singapore has tied its security completely to the US, so if the US defends Taiwan, Singapore will follow.
Although we know that Singapore will help the US defend Taiwan if fighting breaks out, it is nonetheless disappointing that Singapore's freshly crowned prime minister does not have the character to stand by the free and democratic people of Taiwan in words as well as action.
Daniel McCarthy
United States
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS