SATURDAY NOVEMBER 21 2009
 
 
Please excuse our appearance due to overwhelming traffic. Do visit our mirror site at www2.themalaysianinsider.com
Top News | Malaysia | Business | World | Showbiz | Sports | Features | Opinion | Food | Bahasa | About Us
 
Breaking Views

Why Chinese netizens are upset — The Straits Times

NOV 5 — Singapore Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's recent comments in the United States have caused unhappiness among China's netizens. He had urged the US to remain engaged in Asia so as to balance China's military and economic clout. He also said China's “blue-water fleet with aircraft carriers cannot just be to deter foreign intervention in a conflict between Taiwan and the mainland”.

Lee had made frequent comments related to China before. Some of his remarks have seemed acceptable to Westerners, and some to the Chinese.

The background to Lee's most recent remarks was US President Barack Obama's upcoming visit to four Asian nations, including China, from next Wednesday. Obama said publicly that he was looking forward to hearing Lee's views on Asia before leaving on his trip.

There was great unhappiness with Lee among Chinese netizens. Many have a good impression of Singapore as it is a country with a majority Chinese population. They felt that since China does not harbour any ill intentions towards Singapore, there should be no occasion for the current situation.

A Chinese expert on world affairs told the Global Times that Singapore has been vacillating between the US and China, and that Lee's comments may reflect the views of some Southeast Asian nations. However, small nations must be extremely careful as they try to balance big nations against one another, as they risk outsmarting themselves.

What Lee said

The comments that angered the Chinese netizens were made by Lee at the US-Asean Business Council's 25th anniversary gala dinner in Washington on Oct 27.

The gala dinner was attended by “a stellar cast of the political and business heavyweights”, the Singapore media noted. In a story headlined “MM Lee urges the US to retain role in Asia to balance China”, he was reported to have warned the US that it risked losing its global leadership position if it did not remain engaged in Asia to balance China's military and economic clout.

He said the rest of Asia was unable to match China on its own, so the US was needed to strike a regional balance. “The size of China makes it impossible for the rest of Asia, including Japan and India, to match it in weight and capacity in about 20 to 30 years. So we need America to strike a balance,” he said.

He also said: “If the US does not recognise that the Asia-Pacific is where the economic centre of action would be and it loses that economic superiority or lead that it has in the Pacific, then it would lose it worldwide.”

Agence France-Presse said Lee seemed concerned over China's military build-up, which he said might not necessarily be meant for a conflict over Taiwan. He said it was a surprise that Beijing paraded high-tech weapons during the parade on Oct 1 to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic. It raised the spectre of a modern high-tech People's Liberation Army in two or three decades.

Lee also said that closer to home in Southeast Asia, China could flex its military muscle over overlapping territorial claims to islets in the Paracels and Spratlys. “The Chinese have built on several islets fishing outposts, and coast guard vessels patrol them,” he said. “Later, behind these small patrol craft will be a blue-water fleet.”

Lianhe Zaobao reported that Lee held a 45-minute talk with Obama at the White House. The US President said he was “looking forward to hearing Lee's views on the evolving situation in the region”. On Oct 31, Lianhe Zaobao ran an editorial titled “The strategic future of the US is in Asia-Pacific”, echoing Lee's remarks. With the rise of China and India, the driving force in the world's development has shifted increasingly from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and Lee's Washington speech was a reminder of this trend.

The editorial said that China had also become more confident due to its growing national power. Chinese officials who visited the US recently have turned from being defensive to going on the offensive, by raising some of the major obstacles to the development of Sino-US ties.

One is US activity in China's maritime exclusive economic zone, which should be cut and eventually cease. The US military is likely to have mixed feelings upon hearing this as it has been sending its warships to the Asia-Pacific waters since the end of World War II.

According to Japan's Sankei Shimbun, Lee said the US should play a key role in the concept of the East Asian Community, and asked the US to participate actively in the process.

His comments caused unhappiness among China's netizens. Several lamented that while they treated Singaporeans as Chinese, Singaporeans did not treat the Chinese as “among their own”.

One netizen said: “Lee Kuan Yew spoke for the feelings of those in the West who fear China's rise would harm their vested interests.” The more emotional netizens made even stronger remarks.

Wang, a 32-year-old manager in Beijing, said the Chinese respected Singapore. He has not heard of anyone asking anything from Singapore when China grows stronger, so there is no conflict of interests between China and Singapore. He did not understand why politicians would make such comments (as Lee did).

What experts say

Jin Canrong, the deputy dean of the School of International Studies at Renmin University, told reporters that Lee's remarks reflected the mentality of some Southeast Asian nations.

“We have to face a fact — some of the neighbouring countries are not at ease with China,” he said.

“China is the No. 1 trading partner of many of its neighbouring states. They rely on China economically, but do not trust China on security issues, and hope to turn to the US to safeguard their own security.

“However, the US has reduced its attention to the Asia-Pacific region since the outbreak of the financial crisis, as it is preoccupied with problems at home.

“These countries are still willing to get close to the US regardless of whether the US has the capability or is interested.

“Thus, several Southeast Asian nations were very excited when US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attended the Asean Regional Forum this year.”

Jin said Lee made the unfriendly remarks towards China because first, he knew that the Chinese government followed the broad principles of tao guang yang hui — keep a low profile and bide one's time”— and will not argue with him over this. Besides, Lee did not fear angering Chinese citizens as he felt that they played a small role in China's diplomacy.

“Lee Kuan Yew made a misjudgment on this, and this is also a point foreigners are generally not aware of. In reality, the people's opinions play a more important role in diplomacy than they can imagine,” he said.

Su Hao, an expert on East Asian affairs at the China Foreign Affairs University, told the Global Times that Lee's action was a bit unexpected and his remarks were unfriendly towards China. He said Singapore was a small nation located between two larger nations — Indonesia and Malaysia. Hence, it needed to seek strategic backing from a big nation.

Thus, Singapore has traditionally valued its ties with the US. Singapore has its own strategic interests and considerations, but it provided the conditions for the US to have a military presence in Southeast Asia. Though this is not favourable to China objectively, Singapore is not targeting China intentionally.

He said Asean nations hoped to maintain an equal balance between the big nations. But with China and Japan wielding big influence in Asia, and Asean having little power, they hoped for a big nation from outside the region, like the US, to be actively involved in East Asia.

Singapore has always viewed itself as the brain of Asean. Hence, it hopes to spur the US to place importance on East Asia through its statements.

Many netizens do not see Singapore as one of America's closest allies. Chinese military affairs expert Dai Xu told the Global Times that Singapore has close military ties with the US and participates actively in its joint military drills in Asia. In addition, the US has a permanent base in Singapore, which also buys almost all its weapons from the US.

He said Singapore often plays roles too big for itself, hoping in vain to be the Israel of Asia. In its diplomacy, Singapore plays up to big countries and leans on them. Singapore needs to grab attention to feel alive as it fears being drowned out on the world political stage, he added.

Previous comments on China

The sprightly Lee has often commented on China and is frequently sought for interviews by the Western media. However, his comments have been contradictory at times.

The German weekly Der Spiegel asked him in 2005 if China's success had become dangerous for Singapore. “We have watched this transformation and the speed at which it is happening... it's scary... So it is a very serious challenge for us to move aside and not collide with them,” he replied.

Time magazine published an interview with him in the same year. He said: “The discomfort (with China) is primarily that it is becoming a very powerful country and that it's not averse to making its power felt... When we did not sufficiently make amends for (then Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong) having visited Taiwan, they just froze all economic ties at the official level.”

In a United Press International interview on Feb 8 last year, Lee said the Chinese leadership was determined not to challenge any existing power — meaning the US, European Union and Russia — but just make friends with everybody.

When speaking about China's peaceful rise in September this year, he said he was confident the current generation of Chinese leaders wanted peace, but he was unsure of the younger generation of Chinese.

Jin said Singapore was America's bridgehead in Asean and was of higher importance when it came to American politics in the Asia-Pacific region as Singapore, having a majority Chinese population, can be an intermediary between China and the US.

“The US has placed more weight on Singapore because China has become more important to the US. As Singapore can serve as the bridge between China and the US, it has a higher status in the eyes of the US,” he added.

The article first appeared in China's Global Times on Monday.


Comments (8)
written by aries, November 09, 2009
What LKY hoped for when he pandered to the USA was protection and security in times of trouble or threat.

As Singapore is surrounded by larger countries which may be seen as threats, true or imagined, the superior US military might and backing are enough to put any military ambition of neighbouring countries on hold.

In return, the USA gained by given preferential status by Singapore in economic, social and political considerations. The island state becomes a gateway for the US to the Pacific region, which proves to be both lucrative and beneficial in terms of controlling resources and trade.

Singapore similarly gained in multifarious manner. It is a reciprocal and symbiotic relationship. A strong relation with a big power certainly has many advantages which Singapore will be too foolish to lose and forgo.

China is mainly an economic convenience for Singapore as far as their relationship is concerned. A militarily strong China poses an unseen and possible danger to Singapore and other Asian nations if China changes its stance in the future, real or imagined.

Hence the only security and insurance which Singapore could truly and realistically rely on is to align herself to the USA which she had been doing so traditionally and proven to be highly effective.

Singapore will always try to play a "balancing game" of earning the trust of the US and winning the Chinese over through their common Chinese roots.

LKY knows the risks he is taking. After all the US and China cannot go to war with one another which would destroy their very own interests.

Singapore is indeed the mouse between two elephants!
written by kz, November 07, 2009
@sizzlestick

I'm not sure you understand the meaning when I use the term "merely temporary". You clearly definied "monied socialism" as "the mantra that some private businesses are just 'too big to fail'. USA and UK are its main proponents where the governments invested billions of dollars into their failing big banks."

I am pointing out that this investment is merely temporary, and when the economy does better, the state will recede. So therefore while state involvement may rise during this period, that does not mean "Capitalism as we knew it, died in the 2007/2008 Credit Crunch". Government aid and buffers are not new. Take note of the Tulip bubble, the dotcom bubble. At these stages, government may step in with regulations and buffers to try to control the excesses and minimize the implications of individual errors. Correct, AIG is government owned. But it's being broken up and slowly sold off. After time, it will go private. So all that means is maybe a new phase for capitalism, and there is nothing new about this. Think back to the dotcom bubbles or even the tulip bubble. So for you to say that capitalism is dead, I think you are overreaching here. Either one of us may be wrong, but only time will show.

Cost benefit analysis can only state so much. In the end, the investor still needs confidence in our judiciary and political stability etc before they will even consider investing. A simple case would be Indonesia 7 years ago. Compare it to today. Or consider yourself. When you buy a house, you look at the area and the developer. Why developer? Because you want to know about their reputation for on-time completion as well as quality of work. If everyone merely depended on cost benefit analysis, then we would see countries like Nicaragua or PNG outdoing us. So whether you want to condescend and term it a fuzzy feeling, that is your right. In the end, these are the realities. I feel that here, you're only replying for the sake of replying. No offense, but you can consider asking real investors whether faith or confidence matters or whether they invest solely based on the cost benefit analysis. Another example are bank runs where this "fuzzily goody" feeling is of vital importance.

I was already aware that Iraq was allowed to trade oil for food. However, when you say "no need for good leaders", I feel your statement is flawed as the trade embargo placed was because of Saddam Hussein, so obviously leaders DO matter. They dictate the policies and direction of the country. The UN only allowed this trade to alleviate the suffering of Iraq's citizens. So here, I don't see anything for you to correct. Compare Bush and Obama. 2 leaders, yet each with such a great impact. Mahathir and Abdullah. Same thing. So do you still feel that there is no need for good leaders?

Again, thanks for replying. It's nice to hear other opinions to gain an overall picture. Let's just keep an open mind on this.
written by sizzlestick, November 07, 2009
kz... on stating "merely temporary", you sound confused. In the meanwhile, something must have 'died': your capitalism. Keynesian economics strictly speaking is a study of government spending and its effect on the economy in general. It has nothing to do with capitalism. If you still have doubts, recall the communist states of yesterday: they had governments who did the major spending or income generation for the economy with little private sector capital participation. Now transposed this to today, will their USA and UK banks be still around if there had not been their governments' capital injection?

Next, kz's "faith and confidence" are just that for feeling 'fuzzily goody'. What I had in mind, was cold 'cost and benefit' analysis that determine the viability of any investment project. That is why Malaysia will always able to get FDI for its oil resources... this is her comparative advantage.

Corrections for kz: 1) Sadam Husein did sell oil to pay for food, medicine and other things the UN determined necessary. 2) I am not against "others may not feel the same way". I am only stating the obvious as to what is happening in Africa. 3)"belittling about what I posted"... for me it is putting different perspectives or points-of-view. Apologies if you felt hurt after all you said it best "how are we going to improve?" and "so maybe it would be good to keep an open mind" .
written by kz, November 07, 2009
@sizzlestick

Capitalism is not dead as long as markets and market transactions are the principal drivers of economic activity. The actions of the USA and UK does not mean a shift from capitalism to socialism as they have clearly stated that the state control of private institutions is merely temporary. If it were permanent, then I would agree with you. This has been reflected in the 1930s and 1980s. Even our economy needs public spending to support a free market. Does this make us socialists?

Why would FDI have nothing to do with faith or confidence? Figures are merely figures, but investors still need to have faith in the management, policies, judiciary of any country etc before they invest in it. If cost were merely the factor, wouldn't we have a lot of Western companies instead of Singapore? So obviously faith and confidence in the system of governance are vital to investors. Singaporeans don't really like to buy land in Malaysia for this exact same reason.

With regards to your example on Africa, I'd like to point out that conflict diamonds are a good example of the global community taking action when the leaders of certain countries use such products to fund civil wars. The actions and qualities of these leaders do matter. Just the same as Iraq not being able to sell oil previously due to Saddam Hussein. You may feel that they do not need good leaders. But others may not feel the same way.

I don't see anything belittling about what I posted. All these are past/current events, so maybe it would be good to keep an open mind. If we're never going to look at our flaws, how are we going to improve? There's no point ignoring the facts and deluding ourselves into believing that this country has never made mistakes. The point that I'm making is we have made mistakes, and we need to improve. But has anything been done to correct it?
written by sizzlestick, November 07, 2009
kz wrote :
"As for the capitalist system that you claim is coming to an end, perhaps you might enlighten us as to its replacement"
Capitalism as we knew it, died in the 2007/2008 Credit Crunch. Replaced by what we see today as 'monied Socialism' justified by the mantra that some private businesses are just 'too big to fail'. USA and UK are its main proponents where the governments invested billions of dollars into their failing big banks. Even the USA motor industry is a beneficiary of the US government's largesse.

As far as I am concern FDI is a manifestation of the economics' Law of Comparative Advantage. For example, Malaysia lost out to China because of cheap labour cost. The only effective response would be if Malaysia cut all salaries to China's level. It has nothing to do with "faith or confidence".

Take the case of Africa. I always maintained that Africa does not need good leaders. Because no matter who is in charge in Africa's countries. The rest of the world will still get Africa's oil, gold, diamonds, ivory etc. This is internationalistic and very capitalistic trade for you. There will always be the lowest offerors: Africa's dictators and anarchistic insurgents and the highest bidders: Western MNCs and recently Chinese Government linked companies. Therefore no need for good leaders.

Instead of denigrating Malaysia, kz should perhaps count his blessings.



written by HJM, November 06, 2009
I find it odd that current young generation of China believes that China will help overseas Chinese. Because if China did care, she would be helping her diaspora in nations all over the world. Just look at the Malaysia Chinese and you know that China could not be bothered. So when push comes to shove, oversea Chinese and nations like Singapore will have to survive on their own. China cares only about China's ruling elite.
written by An Oversea Chinese, November 05, 2009
I get the sense that the current young generation in China is rather naive about the fact, although there maybe many Chinese around the other parts of the world, they only share the long and historical Chinese culture and not political, economical and national interest. It's plain simple. The Chinese in these other parts of the world endure hardship to settle down in these countries and be accepted or rather tolerated or even assimilated. Not many even can have their own to be the PM like LKY.

These younger generation Chinese (China) maybe too chauvinistic to assume hegemony over the other Chinese in other parts of the world. This is a worrying trend. Must the nations around China "kowtow" to China in the future due to these new generation of Mainland Chinese? The current Chinese (China) did not suffer before like their previous generation. The previous generation of overseas Chinese suffered too. The Japanese killed/murdered the Chinese people brutally in Malaya and Singapore during WWII for their moral and monetary support to China. Can today's oversea Chinese expect help from China if they are oppressed? I believe not. China will never interfere with other nation's internal "problems". Like every nations on this world, Singapore will take care of it's interest first, others perhaps.
written by statistician, November 05, 2009
I inteprete it differently. Singapore neighbourhood countries are 'emotional' countries and the big blue sea. Intelectually management of Singapore is above them. Natural resources wise, Singapore is barren. When LKY speaks he has to pussycat around. China is not going to help if Singapore is in trouble with neighbours. America will.

Copyright © 2009 The Malaysian Insider