Hurricane Katrina and Singapore

[lord of the mark]

Fact 1.Singoapore is recognized by every country on earth
Taiwan is not recognized by a single major power.


2. Indonesia asserts no territorial claim on Singapore. China DOES claim Taiwan.


3, Taiwan does not have a formal decfnce alliance with a single state. SIngapore is a member of the five power defense arrangment.

4. Singapore is a member of the UN. Taiwan is not.

4.Much of the US is sympathetic to taiwan, and its likely that the US would defend Taiwan, if it were attacked.

5. In the past, when Indonesia has invaded European colonies that were not sovereirgn, following the Goa precedent, generally approved by the thirld world majority at the UN,, and in conditions of the cold war, when the US saw Indonesia as a valuable ally, the US did nothing to oppose Indonesia.


6, There is no assurance that the US would come to the aid of Singapore. Indeed there is no assurance that that Australia or the UK would. That teh US and Australian supported the independence of East Timor recently is no assuarance to their future behavior.

7. Similarly there is no assurance thet the US or anyone else would come to the aid of Taiwan

8. That the US has discussed coming to the aid of Taiwan, while there is little discussion by anyone of coming to the aid of Singapore, is largely due to the fact that no country now assers a claim against Singapore.

9. Singapore has one man vote as does Taiwan. One man one vote, in the absence of free speech and press, is no guarantee of democracy. In singapore there have been restriction on freedom of speecha nd the press that may help tp account for the longevity of governance by a single part. No such restrrictions exist in Taiwan, which in fact has seen alternation of parties.

10. Indonesia is now a democracy, also with one man one vote. According to Freedom House, Indonesia has a higher level of political rights than does Singapore.

Which of these do you dispute?

[Drake Tungsten]

LOTM

pwnage

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Fact 1.Singoapore is recognized by every country on earth

That was a great help to Kuwait too, wasn't it ? Hell, it was even a member of the same organisation as Iraq:

The Charter of the Arab League also forbids member states from resorting to force against each other.

Military regimes and dictators tend not to care overly much about international law, or who recognises what.

Indonesia asserts no territorial claim on Singapore. China DOES claim Taiwan.

And ? It didn't when it attacked it in 1965! Or did you miss that ? You don't need to have a legitimate territorial claim to back up a shaky casus belli.

I think you're being a tad over-literal and simplistic in your analogies, and somewhat amnesiac with regard to South East Asian and international history.

Oh, and didn't the Kuomintang and Chiang Kai-Shek also claim to represent all China, meaning not just Taiwan, but also mainland China ?

I think you'll find they did.

3, Taiwan does not have a formal decfnce alliance with a single state. SIngapore is a member of the five power defense arrangment.

I'm unable to tell if you're inadvertently exposing the flaws in your own argument here- are you claiming that the FDPA guarantees Singaporean safety, and thus negates any justification for a Singaporean defence force ?

However, one of the more beneficial aspects of the FPDA is the maintenance of the fractious relationship between Singapore and her closest neighbour, Malaysia which has been characterised by numerous disputes especially during the late 1980s. The official visit in November 1986 by the Israeli President, Chaim Herzog resulted in violent anti-Singapore demonstrations in Malaysia. This, together with the accusations made by the Malaysians of territorial incursions by the SAF dipped the relationship between Singapore and Malaysia to an all-time low during late 1989. Subsequently, in 1990, several bilateral exercises between the nations were called off. Despite the deteriorating relationship, FPDA exercises were not cancelled and the FPDA provided a useful multilateral framework for the maintenance of ties between Singapore and Malaysia. As Tim Huxley points out, "it is an open secret that the FPDA were (sic) intended from the beginning more to keep open channels of communication between the armed forces of Singapore and Malaysia than to reflect any clear-cut mutual defence interests between them."

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/1998/Vol24_2/3.htm

The behaviour of a fellow member of the FDPA would argue against this.

Much of the US is sympathetic to taiwan, and its likely that the US would defend Taiwan, if it were attacked.

Isn't that what I pointed out ? In fact it goes further than that:

the Taiwan Relations Act, signed into law in April 1979.

Among other provisions, the act obligates the United States to supply Taiwan with such defensive weapons as are necessary to maintain a balance of power in the Taiwan Strait. It also states that America's decision to establish diplomatic relations with China rested on the expectation that the future of Taiwan would be determined by peaceful means. Any other method would be "of grave concern" to the United States.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1999/china.50/asian.superpower/view.from.taipei/

In the past, when Indonesia has invaded European colonies that were not sovereirgn, following the Goa precedent, generally approved by the thirld world majority at the UN,, and in conditions of the cold war, when the US saw Indonesia as a valuable ally, the US did nothing to oppose Indonesia.

Well that's an example of litotes at it's best! It encouraged the takeovers of non-Indonesian territories. And then sold arms to the non-democratic occupying power.

There is no assurance that the US would come to the aid of Singapore. Indeed there is no assurance that that Australia or the UK would. That teh US and Australian supported the independence of East Timor recently is no assuarance to their future behavior.

Are you making my points again ?
This is what I've been saying, isn't it ? Singapore has a military capability because in the end it can only rely on its own resources.

Similarly there is no assurance thet the US or anyone else would come to the aid of Taiwan

Let's see what happened relatively recently shall we ?

When military exercises by China in the Taiwan Strait looked as if they might escalate into a genuine invasion, the United States sent two aircraft carrier battle groups to the area. Beijing threatened that if the carriers entered the strait, the Chinese military would destroy them.

Yep- there was no definitely no assurance there.

That the US has discussed coming to the aid of Taiwan, while there is little discussion by anyone of coming to the aid of Singapore, is largely due to the fact that no country now assers a claim against Singapore.

Which condition does not hold true for the future- again, you're concentrating woefully literally on the idea of territorial claims, legitimate or otherwise.

Singapore has one man vote as does Taiwan. One man one vote, in the absence of free speech and press, is no guarantee of democracy. In singapore there have been restriction on freedom of speecha nd the press that may help tp account for the longevity of governance by a single part. No such restrrictions exist in Taiwan, which in fact has seen alternation of parties.

No such restrictions NOW exist, I think you mean. You seem to have blanked out a large part of Taiwan's past.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

9. Singapore has one man vote as does Taiwan. One man one vote, in the absence of free speech and press, is no guarantee of democracy. In singapore there have been restriction on freedom of speecha nd the press that may help tp account for the longevity of governance by a single part. No such restrrictions exist in Taiwan, which in fact has seen alternation of parties.

Now, what does Amnesty International have to say about free and democratic Taiwan ?

Despite its promises to improve the human rights situation, the government implemented few reforms. The death penalty continued to be imposed and 10 people were executed. Torture continued to be used as a means to force confessions, which were then used as evidence in court. Although some 20 Tibetan asylum-seekers were granted asylum, there was concern that immigration procedures were inadequate and lacked transparency.

http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/asa/taiwan?Open

Singapore has indeed seen a long period of rule by Lee Kuan Yew's party- but then, didn't the same apply until relatively recently for Taiwan and the Kuomintang ?

The Kuomintang lost a majority in the legislature for the first time in Taiwan's history.

It would indeed seem so.

In singapore there have been restriction on freedom of speecha nd the press that may help tp account for the longevity of governance by a single part.

Is this worse or better than martial law ?

With the formation of the first genuine opposition party in 1986 and the lifting of martial law in 1987, Taiwan entered a new era.

http://www.tahr.org.tw/site/english/engintro1.html

Now what were you saying about Indonesia?

Indonesia is now a democracy, also with one man one vote. According to Freedom House, Indonesia has a higher level of political rights than does Singapore.

Well, since you haven't had the courtesy to back this up with a cite or quote, or a link, am I meant to guess what this comparison of 'political rights' entails ?