Gerald Giam

US ambassador says "US will fight" if China invades Taiwan

If the People’s Republic of China decides to take Taiwan by force, the US will fight on behalf of Taiwan against the Mainland, said a former US ambassador.

Chase Untermeyer, who just completed his tour as ambassador to Qatar and is on his way back to the US, made these personal comments on 28 Aug at a public lecture on “US policy in the Middle East” at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, which was attended by about 80 government officials, foreign diplomats, academics and students.

The ambassador used the Cross Strait example to illustrate the importance the US government — in his opinion — places on the principles of democracy and freedom in making its foreign policy decisions. He pointed out that successive US administrations had made decisions to enter military conflicts not simply out of national interests or detailed calculations of the costs and benefits of entering the wars, but based on deep seated principles that are “as old as the US itself”.

Untermeyer cautioned that many countries would be mistaken if they think the US conducted its foreign affairs solely on hard-nosed pragmatism, like securing oil supplies. In the case of an invasion of Taiwan by China, Untermeyer believed that the US will fight China not because of treaty obligations or even out of national interest, but based on its principles to defend its democratic allies against aggression. (The US’ Taiwan Relations Act obliges the US to supply Taiwan with the military capability to defend itself.) Untermeyer assessed that even if a war with China is detrimental to US economic interests, the US will still aid Taiwan if the Chinese invasion goes against the will of the Taiwanese people.

Attempting to debunk the common perception that the US is interested in the Middle East only for its oil and enriching its own oil companies, Untermeyer argued that if that were so, the US would have never created the State of Israel, knowing the unpopularity of that move in a region dominated by Arab countries. The US depends on the Middle East for a quarter of its oil supplies. He said that the European Union is much more dependent on Arab oil and therefore sees the Middle East through the prism of energy security much more than the US does.

On the powerful Jewish lobby in the US influencing foreign policy in the Middle East, Untermeyer explained that Jews made up only five per cent of the US population, and that Jews alone would not be able to influence US policy that much. In fact, he said, the pro-Israel lobby in the US is powerful not just because of Jewish support, but because it fights for a “broadly popular cause” subscribed to by a wide spectrum of American citizens, including conservative Christians.

On Iraq, Untermeyer predicted a gradual reduction in troop numbers over the next year following a much anticipated report to Congress next month by the US ambassador to Iraq, but that it would not go “down to zero”.

Touching on Iran, he was convinced that Islamic republic is in the process of developing a nuclear bomb and the capability to deliver it on missiles. By removing Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, the US had unfortunately removed the a heavy counterweight to Iran, which is a far more threatening member of the “Axis of Evil” than Iraq was.

Untermeyer was sceptical that a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will resolve all the problems the US is having in the region, although he emphasised that the US should help “solve it for its own sake”. Cautioning that since any final settlement will involve large compromises by both sides (the Israelis and the Palestinians), he expected that right wing and jihadist groups would still seize upon any compromises that did not favour the Palestinian side to whip up sentiment against the US.

Voicing his personal disagreement with the policies of the current US administration, Untermeyer said that he did not “see anything wrong with dealing with Syria” rather than isolating them, which is the current Administration’s policy. He pointed out that isolation and sanctions have never been effective ways to change undemocratic regimes — Cuba being the most prominent example.

During the question and answer session, a student from China, referring to Untermeyer’s statement about defending Taiwan, pointed out that the island has been an integral part of China for far longer than the US has been nation. He asked Untermeyer what the US would do if one of its own states broke away. Untermeyer refused to be drawn into the Chinese student’s analogy, instead repeating that the US will fight based on its own principles of defending democracy, rather than historic precedent or economic interest.

An Indian student then queried how the US could spring to democratic Taiwan’s defence, yet cosy up with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who overthrew a democratically elected government. Untermeyer acknowledged that Pakistan presented a whole slew of policy difficulties for the US, but that the US saw Musharraf as “our man” for now in no small part because of the threat of Al Qaeda.

Untermeyer admitted that there were many examples of US actions that contradicted this assessment. However, he pointed out that even pragmatists like former secretary of state Henry Kissinger conceded that the principled, values-based approach to foreign policy will in the long run prevail over an approach based purely on hard nosed pragmatism and selfish national interests.

————

This article first appeared in theonlinecitizen.com.

Lessons from the Land of the Rising Sun

Elena and I just returned from a vacation in Japan. It was quite a memorable experience indeed! We spent a few days in Tokyo, visiting places like Disneysea, Akihabara and even the Yasukuni Shrine. The latter is probably not a common tourist destination for ethnic Chinese like myself. It is the final resting place and memorial to Japanese soldiers who died fighting for their country, including convicted the “Class A” war criminals who committed great atrocities against the people of Asia, including those Singapore, Malaya and the Philippines. My great grandfather and grand uncle were abducted by Japanese Imperial Army soldiers during the early days of the War, never to be seen again. (They were probably shot and killed on a beach in Singapore’s east coast.)

But I thought it would useful to see first hand the place that has been the cause of so much tension between Japan and its neighbours, China and Korea. I recognised the arch and walkway from TV footage of former Japanese prime minister Junichiro Koizumi walking through during his provocative visits to the Shrine. Unfortunately I missed the real fanfare which was to take place a few days later, on August 15, the anniversary of the US atomic bombing of Hiroshima. That is the day that many right wing Japanese parliamentarians and dignitaries visit to Shrine to pay homage to their fallen “heros”. (Admittedly not all those in Yasukuni were war criminals, and for the record I don’t agree with President Harry Truman’s decision to drop the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing an estimated 120,000 Japanese civilians.)

After Tokyo, we took a beautiful drive across the island of Hokkaido, Japan’s northern frontier, which is home to just 2 per cent of Japan’s 121 million people. We both don’t speak Nihon-go, so GPS, hand signs and Kanji characters came in quite useful in finding our way around.

This post isn’t a journal entry about our vacation. Instead, I thought I’d share some of the things we observed about the Japanese people, their behaviour and the way their society is organised, and the lessons that Singaporeans could learn from this amazing land. My positive observations fall under 3 broad categories:

1. Consideration for others

In Japan, it is considered rude for your mobile phone to ring in any enclosed space. In our entire two weeks there, we only heard cell phones ring twice — and both instances occurred in open, public areas. Contrast this with my two hours at Singapore’s National Library last Saturday, when I heard phones ringing at least four times!

Driving in Japan, even in a crowded city like Sapporo, was a breeze because everyone gives way, even when they are not required to. I felt a little embarrassed once when I didn’t give way to a car coming out of a petrol station onto the main road, and the car behind me did. I only heard a car horn sound once, and that was a cab driver honking at another cabbie.

Although most Japanese can’t speak much English, everyone we approached for help was more than willing to assist. There was once in Tokyo we got lost and asked a young lady for directions. She didn’t know the way so we thanked her and continued on our way. A few minutes later, on seeing that we were still lost, she came back and tried to ask someone else along the street for help on our behalf! I was amazed at her kindness.

2. Self governance

By self governance, I’m referring to individual citizens willingness to do the right thing, even without being compelled to do so by governing authorities.

On escalators, no matter how crowded it is, everyone — yes everyone — stands on the left, to allow those in a hurry to overtake.

While we were waiting at the crowded Tokyo metro, my jaws almost dropped when I saw all the commuters queuing up in two neat rows on each side of the train doors, waiting their turn to enter. I wonder whether I’ll ever live to see that happening at Jurong East MRT, where the Law of the Jungle apparently reigns supreme.

The Japanese are committed to recycling. Most trash cans have three separate bins — for combustibles, non-combustibles and liquids. The Japanese all faithfully separate their rubbish before throwing. (Yes, they all clear their own trays at fast food restaurants.) There was once at a KFC when I couldn’t figure out which bin was for which item of trash (since I don’t read Japanese). I was tempted to “anyhow throw it”, but societal pressure forced me to do the right thing and ask someone for help.

3. Work attitude

Customer service in Japan is light years ahead of Singapore. Everyone, from hotel staff to waiters to 7-11 cashiers are genuinely friendly and nice. What impressed us most was the work attitude of even those working in “menial” positions like petrol station attendants, car park security guards and toilet cleaners. When I drove into petrol kiosks, the pump attendant would take off his cap, bow and smile. I didn’t even have to get out of my car, as he (or sometimes she) would clean my windshield and collect my payment without expecting any tip.

The public toilets, including those in the metro stations, were sparkling clean and odour free — better than even the toilets in Changi airport — and without a cleaner camped permanently in the toilet. Each cleaner is decked in a smart, white uniform and my guess is that he or she is simply more efficient and effective in his cleaning duties.

Beyond these, one thing I really liked about the hotels there is free, unlimited Internet access from the rooms! No where else, in all my travels, have I enjoyed this in hotels.

Obviously, Japanese society isn’t without faults, and I have chosen to only highlight the positive things in this post. But I think if Singaporeans could learn a thing or two from the Japanese, it could pave the way for us to be a truly developed, First World country.

A YOUTHniquely Singaporean film competition

I’m helping South West CDC organise a film competition. The theme of the competition is “YOUTHniquely Singapore”. So far, we have received quite a number of quality entries. The films can be viewed at www.yourfilm.sg.

Registration is open now until 21 September. If you have something to say about Singapore and can express it using a film, do consider joining! Registration is free and is open to all youths (15-35 years) in Singapore. Top prize is $1,000 in cash and prizes! Just click here to register and submit your films.

A little red dot worth fighting for

“I am not going to sacrifice my life for a worthless piece of land”, cried one reader in response to one of my articles last year about National Service (NS).

As Singapore celebrates its 42^nd National Day in a few days, I hope the overwhelming majority of Singaporeans do not share such a cynical view.

Some Singaporeans see the nation of Singapore, the government and the People’s Action Party (PAP) as one monolithic entity that they either love or hate. Last year, it was reported that some Singaporeans refused to fly their flag during National Day because they were unhappy with some government’s proposed GST hike.

Retired senior civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow once said that “Singapore is larger than the PAP”. I strongly agree. Surely it is possible to disagree with the government, yet still love our country. Similarly bad experiences with the government (like NS for some men) should not diminish our patriotism.

While we cope with the daily stresses of school or work, it is understandable that we often focus on the negative aspects of our country, like the fast pace of life, the high cost of living or our authoritarian government. Unfortunately, we sometimes forget to count the many blessings we have received as Singaporeans. Here are some of the top things I love about Singapore…

Peace. National and regional peace has eluded many countries. To this day many countries like Myanmar, Sudan, Nigeria, Palestine, Zimbabwe and Pakistan are still in the throes of civil unrest or war. Talk to the suffering people there and they will tell you how they wish for peace in their land. The peace that Singapore currently enjoys is much to be thankful for indeed — and not to be taken for granted, especially when we live in a pretty rough neighbourhood.

Low crime. Singapore is probably the safest big city in the world. Those of us who have lived in other countries (including developed ones) would particularly appreciate how safe our streets are. When I was living in Los Angeles, my individual freedom of movement is severely curtailed every day by the fear of violent crime. (The campus Starbucks in my university was robbed at gunpoint, and there was a drive-by shooting outside my house the year after I left.) Many expatriates would probably cite our safe environment as one of the top reasons they chose to relocate together with their families to Singapore.

Unity in diversity. Our ethnic and cultural diversity is a tremendous asset. It has undoubtedly contributed to the vibrancy of our local culture, which has in turn placed Singaporeans in good standing to thrive in a globalised world. Ethnic diversity has been a source of great conflict in many countries. Fortunately this is not so in Singapore, where our inter-ethnic peace can be considered one of the greatest achievements of our people.

Top grade schools. Singapore students have notched some of the top scores in international benchmarks, particularly in maths and science. Singapore maths textbooks for the primary grades are being used more than 200 schools in almost all 50 states in the US. The facilities, academic standards and teaching quality of our schools are on par with some of the best in the world. Although there are many concerns over the pressure cooker environment of our schools, on the whole, I think I would rather have it this way, than have them operate like playschools.

In addition to high academic standards, our public schools also give parents the confidence that their children can go to school in safe environment free of drugs and gang violence that plagues many inner city schools in developed countries.

Excellent healthcare. Singaporeans enjoy one of the best standards of healthcare anywhere in the world. I know a Nigerian businessman who travels half way around the world every year to come to Singapore for his routine medical check-up. I have also met cabinet ministers of countries like Bangladesh who say they regularly visit Singapore for medical treatment. They would not do so if they did not think that Singapore has the best medical facilities and doctors in the region. Singaporeans are incredibly fortunate to have easy access to such excellent healthcare facilities and world renown doctors, often at heavily subsidised prices.

Social mobility. Our system of meritocracy has provided opportunities for almost anyone to succeed, as long as they are willing to work hard and never give up. We do not have a caste system which pigeon-holes particular groups, or a system of patronage which requires guanxi (connections) with important people to get anywhere in life. Our meritocracy is by no means perfect. Being in the majority race or being a “white horse” is unfortunately still often an advantage, but I think we have generally achieved a pretty level playing field for all, with some room for improvement.

Singaporean culture. Who says Singaporeans got no culture? Singlish not part of our culture, meh? How about our unique blend of Malay, Indian, Chinese and Western food? I would even consider the shared experience of NS to be part of our culture (at least for half the population).

Freedom of speech…at least on the Internet. Singapore is by no means a bastion of media freedom. However, the Government’s “light touch” approach to regulating the Internet certainly deserves honourable mention. Since the explosion of popularity of blogs in the past two years, there hasn’t been a single report of political bloggers being
hauled in by the police for crossing the proverbial “out-of-bounds (OB)” markers. Despite the political vitriol against the government published on some local socio-political sites, the only Netizens who have gotten in trouble with the law here are three silly young men who made some deplorable remarks about other races and religions in Singapore. Their punishment was justified in the eyes of most Singaporeans.

National Day is an excellent time to reflect on how much we love and appreciate our country. Our country might have its flaws, but if we take an honest look at the state of our nation, most of us will agree Singapore is still a wonderful place to live in, and little red dot worth fighting for.

Happy National Day to all Singaporeans and Majulah Singapura!

————-

This article first appeared in theonlinecitizen.

Pray for the Korean hostages in Afghanistan

This is a photo of the 23 South Koreans (18 women, five men) who were abducted by the Taliban in Afghanistan six days ago. The group includes doctors and nurses who went to Afghanistan to provide medical services for humanitarian purposes. These young people, filled with passion and idealism, were trying to make a difference in this broken world.

The militants have already killed one of the men in the group. They are demanding that eight of their jailed fighters be released, or the remaining hostages will be killed.

According to blogger eugenecho, who translated an article from Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo, the man killed is Pastor Bae Hyung Kyu. He was 42 years old
was the leader of this relief group. He was on staff as the pastor of the Young Adult ministries in Saemmul Presbyterian Church which he helped to plant nine years ago and which has since grown to nearly 4,000 people. Pastor Bae is survived by his wife and his daughter.

This is a deplorable evil act that is being committed. It is unlikely that Korea will accede to terrorists’ demands, unlike what the Philippines did sometime back when some of its nationals got kidnapped. Hence, the fate of the hostages is really uncertain.

I hope we can join millions of Koreans and people around the world in praying for this group’s safe release and passage back to Korea.

Photo: CNN.com/AP

Response to Straits Times’ questions for article "Internet users learning netiquette the hard way"

Last Friday (July 20), the Straits Times contacted me to ask for my views for their article, “Internet users learning netiquette the hard way” (ST, July 25). The following are the questions and my responses.

Straits Times (ST): I see that you have put your name down on the blog and not shy behind annonymity (sic). But when you blog, are you consciously aware that there are people reading you? If so, do you hold back on talking about certain topics or word your arguments carefully?

Gerald (GG): Yes, I am aware that many people in Singapore and in other countries read my articles (which I write for not just my own blog but other online publications like TheOnlineCitizen.com and OhmyNews International as well). I take a very considered approach to my articles. I do not write things that could be deemed illegal in Singapore. For example, I refrain from making ad hominem attacks on people, and I am careful not to reveal any official secrets (which I might have learned during my NS or when I was a foreign service officer in MFA). However, I do not hold back criticism when I feel criticism is due. For example, I wrote a series of articles last year arguing against the latest GST hike in Singapore. (See the articles here, here, here and here.) But even when I criticise, I try to focus on the issue rather than the person(s). Where possible, I also try to present alternative solutions, although I don’t believe that all criticism needs to be accompanied by solutions.

ST: What do you think of the Wee Shu Min case? I’m thinking if she said it quietly to her friends, nothing would have happened. In this case, it was the Internet, a public area where people read and take notice of what you say, that blew the issue up. Its abit like racism, isn’t it? One can be racist among racist and nobody would take notice. But broadcast it, combined with the fact that one is a public figure, or related to one, and that person can be in big trouble. Would you agree?

GG: The dismissive and arrogant tone of her online rant was interpreted by many Singaporeans as being reflective of the disconnect that some of our “elite” have from mainstream society. I do not agree that one can say nasty or racist things about others in private, but not in public. Sooner or later, one will be held to account. For example, your friends might hear what you mutter in private, and decide to broadcast your words on their blog. But I do agree that public figures (and their relatives) need to be aware that their words carry more weight than that of the ordinary man on the street.

ST: The spread of information over the net is also stupendous. Immediately almost. Do you take care in verifying information before writing or blogging about it?

GG: Yes, I never publish anything without verifying the facts. I see that as my responsibility as a citizen journalist. There is a lot of information on the Net, but it is not as difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff as many “blogophobes” like to make it out to be. Adults should have no problem telling apart a false and misleading website from a genuine one. I think schools and parents have a responsibility to inculcate some media literacy in our young, rather than try to shield them from the Net. But I feel the mainstream media and some of our politicians do bloggers a disservice when they keep perpetuating the myth that blogosphere (and the Internet in general) is “full of clever propaganda, inflammatory opinions, half-truths and untruths” (see this article of mine). I think Singaporean bloggers in general are very responsible citizen journalists.

(Verbal question over a subsequent phone call by the journalist. May not be verbatim.)

ST: Have you ever gotten yourself in trouble because of something you blogged about?

GG: No, I am always very careful about what I blog about.

(Another verbal question)

ST: Do you know anyone who has gotten himself or herself in trouble because of their blog? We are writing an article highlighting some recent incidents where people got burnt because of comments they published on their blogs.

GG: I am in touch with a number of fellow bloggers and I am not aware of any of them who have gotten in trouble because of their blog. I don’t think this is a very a big issue in Singapore.

Afterthoughts:

I’m aware that several other social-political bloggers were also approached by the ST for this article. It seems the questions asked were almost identical. Dansong has published his responses on Singapore Angle. I notice only quotes from university professors and MPs made the final cut. Oh well… :)

What I was actually uncomfortable with was the slant of the article from the outset. It was obvious from the questions that the ST was trying to frame the article in terms of “Singapore bloggers are an irresponsible lot and the nonsense they write always gets them in trouble”.

Is this another example of how the mainstream media is trying to make the new media look like an amateurish and unreliable source of information?

singaporepatriot.wordpress.com is not me

Dear readers,

I have been alerted by several readers of a new blog, http://singaporepatriot.wordpress.com, which happens to share the same URL “singaporepatriot” as my blog.

Please note that I do not own this WordPress blog. Readers are advised not to confuse that blog with mine.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Gerald

Update (24 Jul):

The above-mentioned blog has since been moved to http://patrioticsingaporean.wordpress.com/. Do visit it when you get the chance.

About the Legal Service Commission changes

“Under the existing Constitution, the LSC comprises of the Chief Justice as President, the Attorney-General, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, a High Court Judge nominated by the CJ and up to 2 members of the PSC.

Under Cl 8 of the Bill, the composition of the LSC is to be changed to include up to 2 nominees of the Prime Minister.

If the Bill is passed, the LSC still retains its role of deciding on dismissal and disciplinary action of legal officers. For officers above a certain threshold grade, the LSC will also make career decisions such as promotions and transfers.

Could the Minister clarify further the rationale for having a new category of LSC members who are the PM’s nominees?”

– Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim in Parliament, July 17, 2007. Read her whole speech here.

Sylvia Lim raised a very valid point. Will not the Attorney General, Chairman of the PSC and the two PSC nominees be enough to reflect the Government’s view on key decisions by the Legal Service Commission (LSC)? The Govt already has a de facto “majority” with them on the LSC. Why is there a need to pack the LSC with even more Government nominees?

Most Singaporeans have already made up their mind whether our courts are independent or not. Contrary to what Ms Lim says, this tweaking is not going to affect their perceptions much. But I hope it does not affect the way the Subordinate court judges (whose career progression is determined by the LSC) mete out their judgments, particularly for politically charged cases like defamation cases.

Japan quake: Buildings swaying for 2 minutes

More than 150 injured in quake in Japan: hospitals

From Channel NewsAsia, Posted: 16 July 2007 1135 hrs

TOKYO – A powerful 6.8-magnitude earthquake rattled Japan on Monday, injuring more than 150 people as it toppled houses, triggered mudslides and set off a blaze at a nuclear power plant.

In areas northwest of Tokyo, which were hardest hit, houses were reduced to rubble and a bridge was nearly cracked in two by the force of the mid-morning quake, Japanese television footage showed.

The government set up a crisis-management centre after the quake, which was powerful enough to shake skyscrapers and send goods flying from the shelves of stores in Tokyo more than 200 kilometres (125 miles) away from the epicentre.

Read more at Channel NewsAsia

I just contacted my friend in Tokyo. He said the buildings were swaying for two whole minutes and that it was “quite scary”. Two minutes in earthquake time must have seemed like eternity when you are in a high rise building in downtown Tokyo.

CNA reported that about 150 people were injured and there have been two reports of deaths. If a 6.8 magnitude earthquake happened anywhere else in the world so close to cities, that country would be facing a major catastrophie with hundreds, if not thousands of people killed or injured. I really take my hat off to the Japanese for making all their buildings so earthquake resistant.

Chain of command might have led nowhere

In response to my article, PM’s son’s email saga a heartening development for Singapore, which I contributed to TheOnlineCitizen.com, a reader, Jon, asked some very pertinent questions:

1. If 2LT Li had followed the “proper channel”, what makes you think the 3rd senior officer up the chain of command will do anything?

2. Will Li Hongyi be charged if he merely sent his letters to everyone directly above him (ie, Defense Minister, CDF, CoA, Chief Signal Officer, etc)?

He recalled that there were two senior officers who were issued warning letters for not meting out the appropriate punishment when the offence was first reported to them by Li Hongyi.

These two officers were probably his OC and his unit CO (the same guy who told the whole unit the next day that they must follow the chain of command).

The “proper channels” that Mindef referred to probably would have required Hongyi to patiently go rung by rung up the ladder…CO, CSO, ACGS, COS, COA, CDF, Min. (I’m just guessing. I don’t know the hierarchy — there are probably more “crabs” and “stars” in between.)

If he waited just 3 weeks before before escalating to the next level, that’s 18 weeks before he can email the Minister. He was scheduled to disrupt very soon (he said it was his last email). So he would not have had the time to wait around.

Furthermore, 3 weeks may or may not be an appropriate length of time to wait for a response. If at any point he got impatient and decided to escalate up the issue too soon, he could have gotten charged for not following the chain of command.

So I think he would never have gotten the Lieutenant to face court martial had he not shot the email all the way up to the CDF and Minister.

Now, about the Cc list, which probably included all the enlisted men, drivers, clerks, etc in the whole unit — If he didn’t cc all of them, the letter would never have leaked, and no one would have blogged about it in the first place. In which case, there would be no public pressure on Mindef to act.

So my conclusion is that the outcome — LTA charged, OC and the other senior officer (probably the CO) warned — would not have happened if Hongyi didn’t shoot both up and down.

Perhaps this is what Hongyi himself calculated before he even sent out the email. If so, then maybe he wasn’t so brash after all.