It seems the Australian government-academic establishment is running out of Asian autocrats to fete. Chancellor Allan Hawke and Vice Chancellor Ian Chubb of the Australian National University (ANU) are the latest to join the Australian movers and shakers who laud distasteful people -- in their case, former Singaporean prime minister Lee Kwan Yew, who now holds an ANU honorary doctorate.
That the ANU could impugn its reputation for excellence in Asian studies and human rights law to further the ambitions of its top two officers is surprising enough. That these men should ram through the award by shelving university processes of review and then praise Lee's "integrity," "commitment to advancing the causes of peace and prosperity" and "international statesmanship [sic]" is downright contemptible. But credit where credit's due: Lee would applaud their methods.
Hawke and Chubb, no doubt, will be unmoved to hear of Lee's most recent slur against a head of state -- hardly proper protocol, one might think, for the recipient of a gong for statesmanship. Nonetheless, on April 4, Lee trotted out an attack on President Chen Shui-bian (
The problem with this salvo was that it wasn't just personal; it was a bouquet to China and a put-down directed at millions of Taiwanese people who believe in democracy and liberty. So a personal attack on Lee for his cardigan despotism and hubris is perfectly in order -- because so much of Singapore and its neuroses are linked to Lee's person.
Lee's record on human rights is poor. He, like other autocrats in the region, demeans his people by labeling liberties of press and academic freedom as Western conceits that are not conducive to "Asian" societies. This mentality -- culturalist bordering on racist -- set up one of the more enduring intellectual hoaxes of the 1990s, namely that there exist "Asian values" (as opposed to Western or Judeo-Christian values, presumably, though his argument was never coherent). And these values, funnily enough, seem to absolve people such as Lee for oppressive behavior -- as long as an economic return is delivered.
Lee's legacy of authoritarianism lives on. This week saw the banning of a documentary about a long-time political prisoner in Singapore, Said Zahari. Suffice it to say that Singapore's credibility is shaky if it can't face up to events of 30 years ago and cites social order as a pretext for shutting down debate.
And if it wasn't clear before, it should be now: With the latest pay rise that lawmakers have awarded themselves (justification: lavishing millions of dollars on the "most talented" legislators and executive officials beats corruption), the Singaporean state can now be dubbed the world's most lucrative -- and sanitized -- protection racket. Lee, who these days goes under the risible title of "minister mentor," will himself pocket another small fortune. But even by Singaporean standards, this self-aggrandizement is so brazen that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has promised to donate his new riches to charity.
Lee Kwan Yew, his son and their supporters can keep their city-state kleptocracy and their largely pliant people. And long may he be courted by foreign academic powerbrokers and governments dazzled by his connections.
But Lee Kwan Yew is no friend of Taiwan. Until Singapore learns to deal with domestic political opponents other than by intimidating, bankrupting, arresting and torturing them, there is little to learn from Lee's fiefdom or his lectures. Taiwan has seen it all before -- and left it behind.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers