The Benign and the Belligerent: Re-Framing

Taiwan’s Role in Southeast Asia’s Stability

Ming-Hwa Ting

Ph.D. Candidate, Centre for Asian Studies, University of Adelaide, Australia

In 1949, the Kuomintang (KMT) forces under Chiang Kai-Shek retreated

to Taiwan after they were defeated by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)
under Mao Zedong–this watershed event effectively marked the start of the
Cold War in Asia. During the Cold War, the prospect of Communist
expansion, as evidenced by the domino theory was deemed to pose the most
serious threat to Southeast Asia’s political stability. By extension therefore,
China was viewed as a political threat as well by Southeast Asian countries.
In order to deal with the Chinese threat, Southeast Asian states, in
alliance with Western states like the United States, formed the Southeast
Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) that was later replaced by the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 1967. The commonality
between these two organisations was that both of them were
anti-Communist in nature. The existence of strong anti-Communist
sentiments in Southeast Asia made it logical to then assume that these states
would find a natural ally in Taiwan. Yet, bilateral relations between Taiwan
and Southeast Asian states were neither mature nor entrenched during this
period when they shared a common cause.
With the end of the Cold War, Communism no longer poses an
imminent political threat to Southeast Asian states. Furthermore, China
under Deng Xiaoping not only underwent economic liberalization and
adopted capitalist measures, but also ceased support for Communist parties
in Southeast Asia. Communist China, therefore, is no longer the

49
50 亞太研究論壇第三十八期 2007.12

bogeyman–as it was once perceived. As a result of these developments, it

may appear that Taiwan’s window of opportunity to improve its functional
working ties with Southeast Asian states appear to be closing, or has already
closed, as its anti-Communist credentials cease to have any contemporary
relevance or significance. However, this paper argues that it is still possible
for Taiwan to play a significant role as it can still exercise a degree of
ideational influence in maintaining stability in Southeast Asia. Firstly, the
paper will establish how Taiwan’s localization (bentuhua, 本土化) policy
helps to alleviate the ethnic tension Singapore faces from Malaysia and
Indonesia, and in so doing, indirectly contributes to regional stability.
Secondly, Taiwan, by establishing its own identity that is distinct from
China allows it to emerge from the mainland’s political shadow and to take
on a more active role in international society. Given the inherent antagonism
between China and Taiwan, the latter’s emergence from China’s political
shadows makes the former an ideal candidate as the counter-weight in
developing a balance of power in Southeast Asia designed to check the
growing Chinese political influence there.

I. Colonial Legacy, Contemporary Repercussions:

Relevance of Taiwan’s Bentuhua to Singapore
From Singapore’s perspective, Taiwan’s localization (bentuhua) policy
has much relevance and significance for it. This Taiwanese policy provides
the evidence that strongly vindicates Singapore’s continual struggle to
convince both Malaysia and Indonesia that ethnic identity and political
identity need not be congruent, thereby reducing the ethnic tension that has
been a blight on Singapore’s relations with these two states since its
independence in 1965.
Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles founded modern Singapore in 1819. Prior
to the British presence, mostly Malays inhabited the island. The British
establishment of a free port in Singapore created increased economic
opportunities that attracted many migrants, most of them ethnic Chinese
 專題研究：Taiwan’s Role in the Future of Asia-Pacific Security and Peace 51

from China, to the island. As a result of this development, Singapore

underwent a major demographic transformation; ethnic Chinese soon
displaced the indigenous Malays to become the dominant ethnic group. This
trend continues to present-day Singapore. As Mauzy and Milne point out,
Singapore suffers from a ‘“double minority” setting: the Chinese are a
majority in Singapore, but a minority in the region; the Malays are a
minority in Singapore but a strong majority in the immediate region (Mauzy
and Milne 2002: 99-100).
Singapore’s reputation as a regional outsider has also been in part
encouraged by the actions of its policymakers who generally acknowledge
the year 1819 as the starting point of Singapore’s founding history. As an
ethnic anomaly with a large Chinese majority in the region, it might be
possible for Singapore to moderate its image as an outsider by emphasising
its pre-colonial Malay heritage. However, as Rahim correctly points out,
Singapore’s political leadership has a policy of downplaying its Malay
heritage and history (Rahim 1999). Her argument is directly supported by
Rajaratnam, Singapore’s first Foreign Minister, who stated in 1990 that:

“There is no shared past for us before 1819 when Raffles landed in

Singapore and opened the island's doors to people from the four corners of
the earth. Our memories before 1819 go back to different lands, different
times, different histories and different peoples. These are memories that
Singaporeans cannot share collectively. Our common memories are the
joys, sorrows, disappointments and achievements since 1819. This is our
only and relevant history to shape and guide our future. The history
before 1819 is that of ancestral ghosts.” 1

The repression of the Republic’s past Malay heritage indicates that

Singapore is not entirely at ease with its pre-colonial history. Focusing on the
post-1819 history, Singapore is indirectly playing up its Chinese roots since
ethnic Chinese constitute the majority of its population from then on.

1 “S’pore’s Future Depends on Shared Memories, Collective Amnesia,” Straits Times,

June 20, 1990.

52 亞太研究論壇第三十八期 2007.12

Moreover, Lee Kuan Yew also acknowledged is his memoirs that “No
foreign country other than Britain has had a greater influence on Singapore’s
political development than China, the ancestral homeland of three-quarters
of [Singapore’s population].”(Lee 2000: 573) As a result of the sizeable
presence of ethnic Chinese and their dominant culture in Singapore, it has
thus been perceived by both Malaysia and Indonesia to be an outsider in
Southeast Asia, and this perception has continued to cloud Singapore’s
bilateral relationships with them (Singh 1999: 17).
Due to Singapore’s inverse ethnic ratio in relation to the region,
Singapore has therefore sought to establish and consolidate an identity that
distances it from being viewed as a real or imagined Chinese satellite state
by Malaysia and Indonesia. As early as 1966, Lee Kuan Yew warned of the
political risks Singapore faced if it was perceived to be a Chinese state by
regional states:

“If you want a Chinese chauvinist society, failure is assured. Singapore

will surely be isolated. But even if you are not isolated and you extend
your chauvinistic influence to our neighbours, they will, if they find no
way out, join up with another big neighbour to deal with you.” (Singh
1999: 19)

In order to maintain regional viability and its own regional viability,

Singapore therefore sets out to project an identity that is different from
China. Likewise, Taiwan, over the past twenty years, has also sought to
accomplish this same goal through the policy of bentuhua, and its outcome is
pertinent to Singapore’s situation.

II. Bentuhua Policy in Taiwan

Makeham defined the policy of bentuhua to represent “a type of
nationalism that champions the legitimacy of a distinct Taiwanese identity,
the character and content of which should be determined by the Taiwanese
people.”(Makeham and Hsiau 2005: 1) Under the bentuhua process, Taiwan
strives to achieve its own national and political identities that are separate
 專題研究：Taiwan’s Role in the Future of Asia-Pacific Security and Peace 53

from China.
In 1949, the KMT lost the civil war and formed a government-in-exile in
Taiwan. The KMT regime then was dominated by mainland elites who
perceived the KMT to be the legitimate government of both the Republic of
China (ROC) and the People’s Republic of China (PRC). However, as more
and more Taiwanese were born in Taiwan, this demographic development
meant that the islanders became an increasingly significant political force in
the ROC. The islanders perceived themselves to be different from the
mainland Chinese in Taiwan. As a result of this demographic change, the
KMT introduced the bentuhua policy to appeal to the increasing number of
islanders in Taiwan. This is because they have little to no emotional ties with
China, who then perceived the KMT, whose senior ranks were dominated
by Mainlanders, to be less representative of the general population. The
KMT’s fundamental aim of bentuhua therefore, was to find common political
ground among these two groups (Horowitz, Heo and Tan 2007: 9).
Apart from the increasing numbers of islanders, the growth of the
dangwai (黨外) movement was also another catalyst that accelerated the pace
of democratic reform and reorganisation in Taiwan by the KMT. As a result
of the democratisation process, Taiwan began to acquire an overall identity
that became increasingly different from China, so much so that
“Chineseness” is no longer perceived to be the core element of Taiwanese
identity (Wang 2005: 56). Although Taiwanese and mainland Chinese belong
to the same ethnic group, the bentuhua policy has resulted in these two
groups developing significantly divergent political identities over the past
20 years.
In Lee Teng-Hui’s commencement address at Cornell in 1995, he
described Taiwan’s unique political and cultural development over the years
as the “Taiwan Experience.” He elaborated that:

“By the term Taiwan Experience I mean what the people of Taiwan have
accumulated in recent years through successful political reform and
economic development. This experience has already gained widespread
54 亞太研究論壇第三十八期 2007.12

recognition by international society and is being taken by many

developing nations as a model to emulate. Essentially, the Taiwan
Experience constitutes the economic, political and social transformation
of my nation over the years; a transformation which I believe has
profound implications for the future development of the Asia-Pacific
region and world peace.” (Lee 2005)

Politically, Taiwan under the Chiangs was an authoritarian state.

Taiwan’s political culture was therefore, largely similar to that of mainland
China. Economically though, Taiwan was vastly different from China.
Taiwan has always been a capitalist economy whereas China is still officially
a socialist economy today. However, with the implementation of bentuhua,
Taiwan began its democratisation process and its political culture changed
accordingly, such that in recent years, democratisation has become the
defining trait of bentuhua;2 economic differences are no longer the defining
characteristic which separate Taiwan from China.

III. Congruent Culture, Divergent Destinies

Taiwan’s emphasis on the divergence between ethnic and political
identities through bentuhua is very pertinent for Singapore. Within Southeast
Asia, Malays constitute the ethnic majority. Although there are ethnic
Chinese in every state, it is only in Singapore that they constitute the
majority in the population. At the same time, Singapore’s political
administration is largely dominated by Chinese. As such, the Chinese in
Singapore are able to have greater room to express their Chinese identity
and culture. Lee Kuan Yew has also gone as far as to argue that Singapore is
the only place in Southeast Asia where ethnic Chinese are not discriminated
against and can hold their heads up high (George 1974: 169). However, this
development does not mean that Singapore is, by default, a Sinic outpost in

2 Teng-Hui Lee, “What actually is the goal of Taiwan’s democratization? Speaking

simply, it is the ‘Taiwanization of Taiwan’ (台灣的本土化).” (Jacobs 2005: 17)

 專題研究：Taiwan’s Role in the Future of Asia-Pacific Security and Peace 55

Southeast Asia, or a “kinsman country” of China.3 This potential for ethic

identity and political identity to be perceived as congruent by regional states
is the predicament confronting Singapore. From Singapore’s perspective,
cultivating closer relations with Taiwan can play a part in serving as a buffer
for such misperceptions. This is because, Taiwan, by continuing to champion
for its own individual political identity that is distinct from China,
emphasises that even though both Taiwan and China do share a common
ethnic identity, this development does not necessarily mean that both
entities are, in fact, the same.
To complicate matters further, China has a history of using the term
“Overseas Chinese” in a general and ambiguous manner to refer to both
Chinese citizens residing overseas and ethnic Chinese who are citizens of
other countries (Suryadinata 1985). Fitzgerald writes that one of the ways
the CCP in the past uses the term “Overseas Chinese” is to denote “mainly
Chinese nationals but also including all those who still maintained some
attachment to the Chinese homeland.”(Fitzgerald 1972) These perceived
linkages that were thought to exist between ethnic Southeast Asian Chinese
and mainland Chinese in the 1960s when many of the Southeast Asian states
gained their independence were very strong. Rosenau posited that the key
explanation was because:

“For various reasons the Chinese in Southeast Asia have become leading
merchants of these countries and in turn, are subject to oppressive
taxation and discrimination in many ways. They naturally turn to China
for protection […]. Hence, this minority group becomes involved in the
eyes of the dominant majority in these countries, a potential fifth column,
to which is added the problem of whether or not the Communist Party
will succeed in organizing these Chinese minorities.” (Rosenau 1967:
42-43)

A consequence of the Chinese government’s loose usage of this term

3 This term is used repeatedly in the chapter “China: The Dragon with a Long Tail”

of Lee Kuan Yew’s memoirs (Lee 2000).

56 亞太研究論壇第三十八期 2007.12

was that the Malay majority then viewed ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia
with distrust. The Southeast Asian governments therefore, were worried
about the political loyalties of their ethnic Chinese. More recently, the
Chinese government has also at times referred to overseas ethnic Chinese as
“diaspora.” The term “diaspora” has specific connotations that are at odds
with the present geopolitical realities of nationhood and sovereignty in
Southeast Asia. By referring to the overseas Chinese as “disapora,” it
suggests that the ethnic Chinese regard China, and not the present states
they inhabit in, as their “homeland”. The Chinese government has chosen
terms that indicate that they perceive these overseas Chinese as
pseudo-Chinese nationals who are merely based overseas.
Even though the vast majority of ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia are
now citizens of the various Southeast Asian states, mistrust by the Malay
majority towards the Chinese minority has not been completely eradicated.
Historically, the overseas Chinese were more attached to China. They went
overseas to regions like Southeast Asia just to seek better employment
opportunities and still considered mainland China to be their homeland. As
such, these ethnic Chinese who were based overseas were still deeply
involved with China’s political developments. Hence, they contributed
financial and material resources towards Sun Yat-sen’s efforts during the
1911 Revolution in China.
This historically based national inclination of the overseas Chinese is no
longer applicable now. However, this outdated perspective has yet to be
completely eradicated even in the contemporary context. This is because this
notion provides the [flawed] legitimacy for the various regional
governments to continually discriminate against the ethnic Chinese based on
their potentially suspect political inclinations and allegiances. In a similar
vein, older ethnic Chinese who had received a Chinese education and
therefore have a stronger Chinese cultural background in Singapore are still
sometimes regarded by regional states to be Chinese nationals rather than
Singaporeans (Suryadinata 1985: 18-19). This development is very real. For
 專題研究：Taiwan’s Role in the Future of Asia-Pacific Security and Peace 57

instance, Lee Kuan Yew did not mince his words and described the
suspicions regional state have towards Singapore as “visceral,”(Lee 2000:
599) because the indigenous peoples of Southeast Asia will always distrust
the ethnic Chinese among them (Lee 2000: 600).
The real or perceived existence of pan-Chinese sentiments under
China’s aegis give the Malaysian and Indonesian governments due cause to
question the political loyalties of their ethnic Chinese populations. A
corollary development would be for these two states to view Singapore to be
potentially politically suspect since ethnic Chinese constitute the majority of
its population.

IV. Perceptions and Misperceptions

The image of ethnic Chinese in Singapore and in the region described
above is an outmoded one that is not accurate. 4 However, it must be
acknowledged that “It is an undeniable privilege of every man to prove
himself right in the thesis that the world is his enemy; for if he reiterates it
frequently enough and makes it the background of his conduct, he is bound
eventually to be right.”(X 1947) Hence, if Malaysia and Indonesia both have
a pre-conception of Singapore as a Sinic outpost, Singapore would be
perceived as one and fall victim to this confirmation bias. As a result, the
Republic must then go the extra mile to falsify this hypothesis. However,
Jervis rightly argues that this objective is difficult to achieve since “[accurate]
images are not automatically accepted, especially when the perceiver has
reason to believe a state would like an image accepted whether it is accurate
or not.”(Jervis 1970: 11) Boulding supports Jervis’ stance by arguing that
political elites generally interpret and perceive political developments in a
haphazard manner, as the process of reality formation is based largely on “a

4 Lee Kuan Yew asked Vietnamese Prime Minister Pham Van Dong why he had

problems with the ethnic Chinese in Vietnam. Pham Van Dong’s “blunt answer was
that, as an ethnic Chinese, [Lee] should know that ethnic Chinese would always
support China all the time, just as Vietnamese would support Vietnam, wherever
they might be.” See Lee (2000: 599).
58 亞太研究論壇第三十八期 2007.12

melange of narrative history, memories of past events, stories and

conversations, plus an enormous amount of usually ill-digested and
carelessly collected current information.” (Boulding 1968: 9)
Goh Chok Tong, speaking on Singapore's need for a credible defence
force, made some comments that could easily be misinterpreted by political
elites in the region to mean that nationality is not a durable identity, which
provides a possible explanation that is highly applicable to explaining why
Malaysia and Indonesia’s continually distrust Singapore:

“I was born a British subject. Before I could even walk, the Japanese
dropped their bombs on Singapore. Soon Singapore fell, and I became, I
suppose a Japanese subject. The Japanese lost the war in 1945. Singapore
was returned to the British, and I became a British subject again. In 1959,
when I was still in school, I became a Singaporean citizen. In 1963, when
I was in the university, I became a Malaysian when Singapore became
part of Malaysia. Two years later, soon after I started work, I reverted to
Singapore citizenship. So, all in all, I have changed nationality five
times!” (Goh 1986)

Even though Goh’s nationality has changed many times before, his
ethnicity is permanent and has not changed. The permanency of ethnicity, in
contrast to the Goh’s implied transient nationality, is the crux of the issue
that sullies Singapore’s bilateral relations with both Malaysia and Indonesia.
Singapore is unable to obscure its Chinese ethnicity and so it cannot afford
to acquire the reputation of being under China’s political sway, which
would prove detrimental to the former’s regional well-being. However,
what Singapore can do is to emphasize the distinction between its political
identity and ethnic identity. This is the area where closer relations with
Taiwan can play an important role.
With the bentuhua policy, Taiwan has managed to successfully establish
and consolidate its own unique identity that is different from China. This
development has the potential to reduce the structural tension Singapore
faces in the region because of historical misperceptions over the political
 專題研究：Taiwan’s Role in the Future of Asia-Pacific Security and Peace 59

allegiances of the ethnic Chinese there. As Schelling rightly argues, “words

are cheap [and] not inherently credible … actions … prove something;
significant actions usually incur some cost or risk, and carry some evidence
of their credibility.”(Schelling, 1966: 150) Thus, even though closer relations
with Taiwan will elicit significant opposition from China, it is still important
for Singapore to persist in this course of action.

V. China: View from the South

Historically, Southeast Asian states were generally wary of China. Prior
to the Republican revolution, relations between imperial China and the
various Southeast Asian countries were based on a “tribute system.” The
fundamental characteristic of the tribute system is the explicit
acknowledgment of the various Southeast Asian countries’ acceptance of
China as the hegemonic power in the region. With the growing military and
economic strengths of the European states during the last years of the Qing
dynasty, China’s influence in the region declined accordingly. With
decolonisation and the subsequent independence of Southeast Asian states
after World War II (WWII), their relations with China remained uneasy.
Although China no longer claimed to their overlord, its Communist political
system and its support for Communist parties resulted in the perpetuation
in the perception by Southeast Asian states that China continues to be a
political threat.
In order to confront the Communist problem, regional states formed
ASEAN. It was founded in 1967 and this regional organisation has entered
into its fourth decade of existence today. However, ASEAN was not the first
multilateral organisation in the region. SEATO was the first such
organisation in the region. However, both organisations were
anti-Communist in nature as they were founded on the express aim of
containing the growth and spread of Communism from China to Southeast
Asia during the 1950s and 1960s. This was because even though China–with
the exception of its explicit support for its North Vietnamese Communist
60 亞太研究論壇第三十八期 2007.12

counterpart during the Indochina conflict–did not offer much concrete and
substantial material support for Communist parties in Southeast Asia, such
as the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI) and the Malayan Communist
Party (MCP). China did still maintain organisational and symbolic links with
its Communist counterparts in Southeast Asia (Suryadinata 1985: 126-131).
Due to China’s continued support for these Communist parties, Chinese
actions were interpreted by Southeast Asian states to be an act of
interference in their domestic politics, which prevented the establishment of
normal ties with China. However, since the late 1970s, China under Deng
Xiaoping’s economic liberalisation policy has remained socialist in name
only, and not in its deeds; more significantly, China under Deng has also
ceased support for Communist parties in Asia.
Although China is no longer an overt political threat, it growing
influence in the region has been a cause of concern for Southeast Asian states.
According to Singapore’s elder statesman Lee Kuan Yew, he said in a recent
interview with the International Herald Tribune that China’s growing
influence in Southeast Asia is made more pressing given the United States’
current preoccupation in the Middle East, which may cause the United
States to possibly neglect developments in Southeast Asia (Mydans and
Arnold 2007). In the same interview, Lee also talks candidly about the Sultan
of Brunei’s visit to China approximately 10 years ago. The Chinese officials
took the Sultan to visit his great-great-grand father’s mausoleum in Nanjing,
who died while presenting tribute to China. To Lee, the Chinese action was
an explicit way of reminding Brunei of both China and Brunei's place within
the Asian hierarchy of states in the past respectively (Apcar, Arnold and
Mydans 2007). The pressing issue confronting Southeast Asian states now is
that with the rapidly growing Chinese economic might, the Middle
Kingdom may yet re-assert its previous dominance in the region in the not
too distant future.
 專題研究：Taiwan’s Role in the Future of Asia-Pacific Security and Peace 61

VI. Regional Balance of Power

It may be possible for Taiwan to exploit China’s expanding influence in
Southeast Asia to increase its own interaction with the region. This is
because Taiwan is in a good position to potentially serve as an ideational
variable for Southeast Asian states to test China’s claim of its peaceful rise,
and in so doing, to also become a counterweight in the regional balance of
power. This is because Taiwan’s bentuhua policy has allowed the latter to
cultivate its own identity, thereby making it possible for it to play a more
pronounced role in international society. Firstly, the fundamental reason for
Taiwan to undertake bentuhua arose from the need to distance itself from
Chinese influence. Furthermore, Taiwan’s inherent antagonism towards
China makes it a natural candidate to want to have a balance of power
relationship, which might serve as a check on China. Secondly, this
Taiwanese-centric balance of power policy in Southeast Asia against China
might be possible to realise because this region does not pose a serious and
direct threat to China politically, economically or strategically. Southeast
Asia therefore, provides a “safe” environment for the potential falsification
of the Chinese hypothesis of a peaceful rise. For instance, Japan is not a good
candidate as its action in this aspect is very likely to upset the present status
quo, which would have serious geopolitical ramifications for the region as a
whole.
Although Southeast Asian states do not perceive China as an
expansionist power currently, there are concerns that China may adopt an
increasingly assertive foreign policy that may upset the prevailing regional
political status quo in the future (Whiting 1997: 299).5 Thus, even though
China’s rise has thus far been a peaceful one, the events in 1995-6, namely
that of Chinese military activities in the Taiwan Straits and the occupation of
Mischief Reef served to remind Southeast Asian states that China still poses

5 For instance, China’s increased activism in the international system can be seen by
its efforts in the Six-Party talks with North Korea and Chinese pressure on Burma
over its recent crackdown on protestors.
62 亞太研究論壇第三十八期 2007.12

a potential security threat to regional stability. There are therefore, potential

political benefits for Southeast Asia to contemplate initiating a regional
balance of power involving Taiwan through establishing closer relation with
the latter. Moreover, this theoretical development is also plausible given that
historically, Southeast Asian states’ relations with China have been
antagonistic. As Whiting observes, from the Southeast Asian states’
perspective:

“…the negative record of past relations […] reduces confidence in

present PRC protestations of peaceful intent. Successive “memory
layers” laid down over centuries of interactions with this powerful
neighbour converge, particularly among the South China Sea states, so as
to prejudice the credibility of declared Chinese positions on mutual
cooperation. Thus past attempts at hegemony, real or recalled, cast a
shadow of potential Chinese domination in the future.” (Whiting 1997:
302)

With the next Olympics set to be held in China less than a year to go, it
may now be an opportune time for Taiwan to begin its charm offensive in
Southeast Asia, and convince them to balance against China, rather than to
bandwagon with the latter. China wants to minimise any negative publicity
during this period, which presents Taiwan with more political and
diplomatic leeway to court Southeast Asian states. The last Olympics held in
South Korea in 1988 helped to escalate the democratisation process that
ushered in the end of authoritarian rule there. Although it is extremely
unlikely for the same development to take place in China, the Olympics may
yet bring about minute changes that would make China become slightly
more politically liberal (Yardley 2007). For example, there appears to be a
casual link between increased negative international glare transfixed on
China with the publications of articles like “The ‘Genocide Olympics’”(R.
Farrow and M. Farrow 2007) in the Wall Street Journal and China’s
subsequent support for the United Nations (UN) resolution for the
deployment of peacekeepers to Darfur in Sudan. Hence, this theoretical
 專題研究：Taiwan’s Role in the Future of Asia-Pacific Security and Peace 63

scenario could potentially increase the likelihood of Taiwanese success in

bolstering ties with Southeast Asian states as China in this context is less
likely to pursue overly punitive actions to check Taiwan’s advance in this
area at this time.
In recent years, Southeast Asia has increased its interaction and
engagement with China, a development which has also coincided with the
latter’s more active foreign policy in Asia (Medeiros and Fravel 2003),
through various ASEAN-centric multilateral institutions such as the East
Asian Summit (EAS) the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), and the ASEAN +
3 grouping. As the largest and most populous state in East Asia, it is
important for Southeast Asian states to institutionalise diplomatic channels
that are available to interact with China (Ba 2003: 629). Conversely, as an
aspiring, and rising power, it is detrimental for China to be perceived by
regional states as a revisionist state that seeks to impose hegemonic control
in the region. As such, continual participation in these organisations is also
very important to China as well. This is because as an aspiring superpower,
China seeks international legitimacy within the international community.
Since Southeast Asian states do not pose any direct political or military
threat to China, its reaction to Southeast Asian states’ closer alignment with
Taiwan therefore, has to be a measured one. If China’s actions against
Southeast Asian states are deemed by the international community to be too
forceful, China would acquire an image of being “destabilizing and
aggressive,” thereby “justifying discrimination and motivating hostile
balancing” by other states (Deng 2006: 187).
In order for this Taiwanese scheme of balancing against China to be
successful, it is necessary for ASEAN to act collectively, and there are signs
that it is indeed possible for ASEAN to act uniformly. For instance, in the
recent unrest in Burma, Lee Hsien Loong, Singapore’s Prime Minister urged
ASEAN leaders to issue a joint statement condemning the Burmese military
junta’s actions, which they did soon after (Aziz 2007). Even though ASEAN
operates on the basis of consensus and non-interference, and was formerly
64 亞太研究論壇第三十八期 2007.12

described as a “gentlemen’s club,” 6 the organisation is now gradually

becoming more politically assertive. Hence, ASEAN’s image of increasing
assertiveness makes it possible to contemplate that the organisation may be
able to play, or at least be seen to play, a more active political role in the
future.

VII. Images: Integrity and Illusion

Image is an important concept in foreign policy analysis. In the simplest
terms, a state’s (or a group of states like ASEAN) image is how other states
perceive it to be. In other words, a state’s image signals a behaviour that
allows other states to be aware of its intention. The main use of image, as
Jervis puts it, is to shape and inform beliefs about a state, and in so doing,
influences other states to act in a certain way that allows that particular state
to accomplish its objectives without incurring high opportunity costs (Jervis
1970: 3-4). A positive image, therefore, is a conduit that allows states to
pursue and reach their goals “on the cheap.”(Jervis 1970: 4) States, therefore,
can be expected to endow much importance and significance to the
conclusions and perceptions that another state may draw from how they are
expected to resolve and handle a particular issue, rather than the intrinsic
value of that specific issue itself (Jervis 1970: 4). This observation provides a
possible explanation as to why it is possible for Taiwan to convince
Southeast Asian states to establish closer ties although such action may
initially appear to be contrary to their collective interests.
China’s political and economic strengths are growing very rapidly and
Taiwan is in no position to match China’s influence in the international
system. As such, it does appear that ASEAN is paying a high price just to
secure a minor symbolic victory. However, rather than jumping to the
conclusion that states, which are party to these behaviours, are not fully
aware of the role of power and behaving irrationally. It may be more
accurate to characterise Southeast Asian states as being able to make the

6 “Budget Aims to Push Economy Forward: PM”, Straits Times, January 16, 2006.
 專題研究：Taiwan’s Role in the Future of Asia-Pacific Security and Peace 65

distinction between short-term losses and long-term gains. This is because

closer alignment with Taiwan can be interpreted as a tool for maintaining
their international image, which might help them to pursue other more
important and long-term goals. From the perspective of the Southeast Asian
states, closer alignment with Taiwan signals their intention not to be drawn
into China’s growing orbit. However, it must be acknowledged that China’s
rapidly growing economic strength and political influence makes it
increasingly difficult for Southeast Asian states to maintain their distance in
the future. Therefore, it is advisable for them and Taiwan to start this
process earlier as opposed to later when China becomes even stronger,
which would make this scheme even more difficult to achieve.

VIII. Taiwan and Southeast Asia: Economically

Symbiotic Relationship
Despite China’s growing strength, there is still much Taiwan can do to
strengthen its existing ties with Southeast Asian states. For instance,
although China’s economic indices are very strong now, too many volatile
variables are involved and so it not quite possible for any analysts or
commentators to confidently predict that China’s strong current economic
growth will necessarily persist into the future at the same rate. On the other
hand, Taiwan’s economy is on a more stable footing and has demonstrated a
relatively positive track record in weathering various international economic
crises generally better than the Southeast Asian states. For instance,
Taiwan’s economy was generally insulated from the financial troubles that
plagued Southeast Asia in the mid 1980s and late 1990s. From this
perspective, Taiwan’s economic management and governance standards are
higher and more developed than those existing in most of the Southeast
Asian states, which provides an opportunity for Taiwan to provide
economic management assistance to these states.
Taiwan is able to do so because even though it has limited participation
in international institutions like the United Nations and various
66 亞太研究論壇第三十八期 2007.12

ASEAN-driven organisations, Taiwan is a member of the Asian

Development Bank (ADB), World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the
Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). These are arguably the most
significant international groupings within the global economic realm from
Southeast Asia’s perspective. Memberships in these multilateral institutions
provide Taiwan with a ready platform to bolster its quest to gain
international diplomatic space and exposure. Taiwan must then strive to
make the best use of these existing opportunities available to it to at least
cement, if not institutionalise relations with Southeast Asian states.
Thus far, Taiwan has not been able to participate in any of the
ASEAN-driven organisations. This is because these organisations do not
want to risk the incurring the displeasure and causing China’s subsequent
absence from any of these summits since the primary objective of
establishing these summits is to provide more channels to engage China in
the first place. However, if Taiwan can increase its economic presence in
ASEAN states, this development could allow Taiwan to partly circumvent
the difficulties the latter has experienced in multilateral diplomacy. This is
because if Taiwan is able to play a major economic role in the region through
bilateral arrangements, even though it may not be able to participate in these
multilateral institutions directly, Taiwan could still potentially stay engaged
through “proxy diplomacy.” For instance, Taiwan is the largest foreign
investor in Vietnam. As such both countries are expected to have established
close economic relations. Thus, given Taiwan’s sizeable economic
investment in Vietnam, it could be reasonably expected that Vietnam would
directly look after Taiwanese interests and serve as a surrogate vehicle for
the voicing of Taiwanese concerns. This is because if Taiwan’s economic
interests were to be prejudiced against, it would be expected that Vietnam’s
would be indirectly affected as well.
This economically symbiotic relationship between the investor and
recipient countries provide an indirect platform for Taiwan to stay engaged
with the various ASEAN-centric multilateral institutions. Although it must
 專題研究：Taiwan’s Role in the Future of Asia-Pacific Security and Peace 67

be admitted that “proxy diplomacy” is not the most effective way for
Taiwan to maintain its involvement in the region (Leifer 2001), nevertheless,
it is arguably the most workable solution that is acceptable to China in the
near future. From this perspective, it is vital for Taiwan to both broaden and
deepen economic relations with Southeast Asian states because the more
economically dependent Southeast Asian states become on Taiwan, the
greater leverage Taiwan has over them (Chen 2002: 89).7
Despite China’s recent meteoric economic rise, Taiwan has a substantial
head start over China in terms of economic investment in these states.
Moreover, in terms of official diplomatic recognition, China’s overall
diplomatic relations are also not as entrenched and developed since it was
only in the early 1990s that the ASEAN-5 officially recognised China. Even
though these five states are not likely to switch official diplomatic
recognition from China to Taiwan, it is still possible for Taiwan to stay
engaged with the region by exploiting and inhabiting the interstices that
exist most notably in the realm of low politics-such as in the economic
sector.

IX. Maintaining the Symbiotic Relationship

Although Taiwan has traditionally been, and continues to be a major
investor in Southeast Asia, Taiwan has been channelling more capital, in
terms of both relative and absolute amounts, to China then to Southeast Asia
since 1991, with 1997 being the sole exception to this trend (Chen 2003:
83-84). In order to make the Southeast Asian states want to forge closer links
with Taiwan, it must provide substantial economic incentives to entice these
states. Hsueh notes that currently “there are few economic and political
incentives” present to cause some Southeast Asian states to rethink (Hsueh,

7 This stand is supported by Leifer’s argument that senior Southeast Asian

politicians’ visits to Taiwan “in the face of Beijing’s objections, have been driven by
economic considerations. Such was the case, for example, in November 1997 when
Malaysia’s prime minister, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, and Singapore’s prime minister
Goh Chok Tong, made successive visits within 24 hours to Taipei to meet the prime
minister, Vincent Siew.”(Leifer 2001: 182)
68 亞太研究論壇第三十八期 2007.12

2006: 179).
The most effective way at Taiwan’s disposal to accomplish this objective
is through increasing its investment in Southeast Asia; Taiwanese
investment ought to not only “Go West, but also Go South.”(Chen 1996)
Incidentally, this is also the view of Wu Rong-I, president of Taiwan
Institute of Economic Research (TIER), who strongly advocates such an
approach to reduce Taiwan’s dependence on the mainland (Hsueh 2006: 170).
China attracts a lot of Taiwanese capital because China has a vast supply of
cheap labour and a large domestic market. At the same time, Taiwanese
investors do not encounter any language or cultural barriers in China when
they operate in China. More importantly, investing in China allows
Taiwanese enterprises to achieve comparative economic advantages that
may not be fully realised in Southeast Asia. This is because Taiwanese firms
can shift the labour intensive sectors to China and concentrate on the
research and development aspects in Taiwan whereas Southeast Asian states
are now increasingly focusing on capital-intensive rather than
labour-intensive industries. As a result, the current economic conditions in
Southeast Asia are perceived to be less attractive for Taiwanese investment
to those available in China.
Even though economic liberalisation in the past two decades have made
it easier and more attractive for Taiwanese firms to invest in China, it is still
in Taiwan’s interests to continue its strong economic relationship with
Southeast Asia through continued investment in the region. This is because
the over-concentration of investment in the Chinese market may expose
Taiwan to increased risks; diverting investment to Southeast Asia is a way
for Taiwan to spread and reduce the risks that range from cross-Strait issues
to health concerns such as SARS, and to product safety concerns that could
turn volatile very rapidly that Taiwan faces currently (Berger and Lester
2005: 27).
Despite the increased economic interdependence between Taiwan and
China, this development has not necessarily ameliorated the cross-Strait
 專題研究：Taiwan’s Role in the Future of Asia-Pacific Security and Peace 69

tensions. For instance, President Chen Shui-bian’s approval for Taiwanese

semiconductor manufacturing firms to relocate to the mainland has
encouraged closer and more entrenched economic integration between
China and Taiwan. Yet, closer economic links have thus far failed to
noticeably reduce the cross-Strait political tension. For example, direct postal,
flight and shipping links between Taiwan and China still remain restricted;
economic imperative has yet to overcome the inherent political differences
associated with the problematic cross-Strait ties. Despite the high degree of
economic interdependence, disagreements over the meaning of “one China”
and China’s recent diplomatic offensive to win back states that recognise
Taiwan in the South Pacific and Africa have caused Chen to not only assert
Taiwan’s de facto independence, but also move towards declaring de jure
independence, since he has on various occasions said that Taiwan would
“go its own way” and that there is “a country of each side” of the Taiwan
straits (Associated Press 2007). These examples show that it is both
politically and economically risky for Taiwan to continually invest in China,
and thereby opening itself to be potentially held hostage by China, at the
expense of neglecting other places like in Southeast Asia. This is because
increased economic interdependence may bring about possible increased
Chinese influence on Taiwan as opposed to the reduction of cross-strait
tensions in the future (Leng 1998: 497-499).

X. Conclusion: Carpe Diem

Taiwan’s relations with Southeast Asian states have thus far been
hampered by their fear of incurring the Chinese wrath. Geopolitical
considerations during the Cold War presented Taiwan with the opportunity
to consolidate its ties with these states. Even though Taiwan did not manage
to accomplish this objective then, the current rise of China may yet present
Taiwan with another opportunity at establishing closer ties with Southeast
Asian states. In order to do so, Taiwan has to put forward a
value-proposition package, which focuses on the potential roles Taiwan can
70 亞太研究論壇第三十八期 2007.12

play in maintaining regional security that appeal to Southeast Asian states.

Taiwan, through the bentuhua policy, can present itself as a very concrete
example for Singapore to impress upon Malaysia and Indonesia that ethnic
identity and political identity need not necessarily dovetail with each other.
For the Southeast Asian region as a whole, Taiwan can put forward the
counter-argument that cultivating closer ties with it can put in place a
regional balance of power, which serves the symbolic purpose of signalling
to China that the region is wary of the growing Chinese influence in the
region. A corollary development of the above development would be that
the region’s closer ties with Taiwan, in the face of Chinese opposition, serves
as a test to either validate or falsify China’s oft-repeated claims to peaceful
rise. If the hypothesis is validated, then it could be expected that Taiwan
would be able to have improved relations with the region. If the hypothesis
is falsified, then it would cast China in a less then favourable light, which
would be in both the region’s and Taiwan’s favour since other states would
then be more likely to balance against China's growing influence. In
conclusion, international relations theories and their analyses tend to be
post-predictive. In order for Taiwan to gain international legitimacy and
exposure, it has to remain pragmatic and flexible, always ready to utilise any
developments and changes within international society to further its cause.
Successes may not come soon or often enough, and as Lee Kuan Yew once
said about the constraints Singapore faces in its foreign policy, “In an
imperfect world, [a state has] to search for the best accommodation possible.
And no accommodation is permanent. If it lasts long enough for progress to
be made until the next set of arrangements can be put in place, let us be
grateful for it.”(Leifer 2000: 162) His sentiments are equally applicable to
Taiwan’s context.
 專題研究：Taiwan’s Role in the Future of Asia-Pacific Security and Peace 71

References
Aggarwal, Vinod K. and Shujiro Urata, eds. 2006. Bilateral Trade Agreements
in the Asia-Pacific: Origins, Evolution, and Implications. New York:
Routledge.
Apcar, Leonard M., Wayne Arnold, and Seth Mydans. 2007. Excerpts from
an Interview with Lee Kuan Yew. International Herald Tribune, August
29.
Associated Press. 2007. Taiwanese Part Asserts Island's Independence
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Taiwan-Politics.html
Aziz, Gamar Abdul. 2007. Asean Cannot Remain Silent over Myanmar
Unrest: Pm Lee. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/
singaporelocalnews/view/302532/1/.html
Ba, Alice D. 2003. China and Asean: Renavigating Relations for a
21st-Century Asia. Asian Survey, 43(4): 622-647.
Berger, Suzanne and Richard K. Lester, eds. 2005. Global Taiwan: Building
Competitive Strengths in a New International Economy. New York: M.E.
Sharpe.
Boulding, Kenneth E. 1968. Learning and Reality-Testing Process in the
International System. In John C. Farrell and Asa P. Smith, eds., Image
and Reality in World Politics. New York and London: Columbia
University Press.
Chen, Jie. 2002. Foreign Policy of the New Taiwan: Pragmatic Diplomacy in
Southeast Asia. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.
Chen, Tain-Jy. 2003. Will Taiwan Be Marginalized by China? Asian Economic
Papers, 2(2): 78-97.
Chen, Xiangming. 1996. Taiwan Investments in China and Southeast Asia:
“Go West, but Also Go South”. Asian Survey, 36(5): 447-467.
Deng, Yong. 2006. Reputation and the Security Dilemma: China Reacts to the
China Threat Theory. Pp. 186-214 in Alastair Iain Johnston and Robert S.
Ross, eds., New Directions in the Study of China's Foreign Policy. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
72 亞太研究論壇第三十八期 2007.12

Farrell, John C. and Asa P. Smith, eds. 1968. Image and Reality in World
Politics. New York and London: Columbia University Press.
Farrow, Ronan, and Mia Farrow. 2007. The “Genocide Olympics”. Wall Street
Journal, March 28.
Fitzgerald, Stephen. 1972. China and the Overseas Chinese: A Study of Peking's
Changing Policy, 1949-1970. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
George, T. S. 1974. Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore. London: Andre Deuth.
Goh, Chok Tong. 1986. The Second Long March. In Speech by Mr. Goh Chok
Tong, First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, at the Nanyang
Technological Institute (NTI) Forum. Singapore: Singapore Government.
Horowitz, Shale, Uk Heo and Alexander C. Tan, eds. 2007. Identity and
Change in East Asian Conflicts: The Cases of China, Taiwan and the Koreas.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hsueh, Roselyn Y. 2006. Who Rules the International Economy? Taiwan’s
Daunting Attempts at Bilateralism. In Vinod K. Aggarwal and Shujiro
Urata, eds., Bilateral Trade Agreements in the Asia-Pacific: Origins,
Evolution, and Implications. New York: Routledge.
Jacobs, J. Bruce. 2005. “Taiwanization” in Taiwan’s Politics’. Pp. 17-54 in
John Makeham and A-Chin Hsiau, eds., Cultural, Ethnic, and Political
Nationalism in Contemporary Taiwan: Bentuhua. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Jervis, Robert. 1970. The Logic of Images in International Relations. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Johnston, Alastair Iain and Robert S. Ross, eds. 2006. New Directions in the
Study of China's Foreign Policy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Lee, Kuan Yew. 2000. From Third World to First, the Singapore Story: 1965-2000.
New York: Harper Collins.
Lee, Teng-Hui. 1995. Always in My Heart (Commencement Address at
Cornell University). http://www.news.cornell.edu/campus/Lee/
Lee_Speech.html
 專題研究：Taiwan’s Role in the Future of Asia-Pacific Security and Peace 73

Leifer, Michael. 2000. Singapore's Foreign Policy: Coping with Vulnerability.

London and New York: Routledge.
______. 2001. Taiwan and South-East Asia: The Limits to Pragmatic
Diplomacy. China Quarterly, 165: 173-185.
Leng, Tse-Kang. 1998. Dynamics of Taiwan-Mainland China Economic
Relations: The Role of Private Firms. Asian Survey, 38(5): 494-509.
Makeham, John and A-Chin Hsiau, eds. 2005. Cultural, Ethnic, and Political
Nationalism in Contemporary Taiwan: Bentuhua. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Mauzy, Diane K., and R. S. Milne. 2002. Singapore Politics under the People’s
Action Party. London and New York: Routledge.
Medeiros, Evan S. and M. Taylor Fravel. 2003. China’s New Diplomacy.
Foreign Affairs, 82(5): 22-44.
Mydans, Seth and Wayne Arnold. 2007. Lee Kuan Yew, Founder of
Singapore, Changing with Times. International Herald Tribune, August
29.
Rahim, Lily Zubaidah. 1999. Singapore-Malaysia Relations: Deep-Seated
Tensions and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies. Journal of Contemporary Asia,
29(1): 38-55.
Rosenau, James. 1967. Of Boundaries and Bridges: A Report on the
Interdependencies of National and International Systems. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Schelling, Thomas. 1966. Arms and Influence. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Singh, Bilveer. 1999. The Vulnerability of Small States Revisited: A Study of
Singapore's Post-Cold War Foreign Policy. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada
University Press.
Suryadinata, Leo. 1985. China and the Asean States: The Ethnic Chinese
Dimension. Singapore: Singapore University Press.
74 亞太研究論壇第三十八期 2007.12

Wang, Fu-Chang. 2005. Why Bother about School Textbooks?: An Analysis

of the Origin of the Disputes over Renshi Taiwan Textbook in 1997. Pp.
55-99 in John Makeham and A-Chin Hsiau, eds., Cultural, Ethnic, and
Political Nationalism in Contemporary Taiwan: Bentuhua. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Whiting, Allen S. 1997. Asean Eyes China: The Security Dimension. Asian
Survey, 37 (4): 299-322.
X (George F. Kennan). 1947. The Sources of Soviet Conduct. Foreign Affairs,
25 (1): 566-582.
Yardley, Jim. 2007. Beijing ‘08: Let the Politics Begin. New York Times, August
12.