At 5:30 that afternoon, having just deplaned from his distant travels, President Lee, to the eager anticipation of reporters, strode into the press conference room at Sungshan airport....

Shaw Yu-ming, director-general of the Government Information Office made the following opening remarks:

Mr. President, Minister Lien, ladies and gentlemen of the press, and compatriots watching on television, good evening.

President Lee's four-day visit to Singapore was fatiguing and toilsome but was also an extremely successful and fruitful diplomatic visit. The President has decided to meet with you today immediately upon his return to discuss the events of his visit.

Because of time limitations, questions should, in principle, be centered on the visit to Singapore, and the conference should last about half an hour, or a bit longer if necessary. Having made clear these two points, I would like to invite President Lee to give us his remarks.

President Lee then briefed reporters:

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'm extremely pleased to have an opportunity to meet with you at this time, having just returned from a four-day visit to Singapore, accompanied by a group of our top government officials, at the invitation of the Singapore government.

Our visit can be said to have had three purposes. As everyone well knows, the Republic of China and Singapore have close relations, particularly as far as our cooperation in the areas of trade, culture, and technology is concerned. Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew cares strongly about the ROC and has paid several visits to our country for a long time now, so this trip could be called a return visit at the same time that it served as a chance for us to exchange views and to talk about various problems that have arisen in the Asian region and future trends. That was the first purpose. Then again, Singapore is a city state, and there must be reasons for it to have developed as rapidly as it has. It wouldn't have achieved what it has today without a fair amount of success in its leadership personnel and its strategic methods, and so using this opportunity to understand how it achieved its development was a second purpose of our visit. The third purpose was to take a look at the situation of Chinese people in Singapore, to pay our respects to them, and to express the government's concern for the conditions of their life and their various activities.

As each of you well knows, the ROC is an independent sovereign state, and in foreign relations we seek to spur international cooperation and take part in international activities, under the principle of mutual interest and based on a spirit of independence and self-direction. The Asian region, you are all well aware, is in the process of rapid change, in which future changes may occur not only economically but also politically to a certain degree as well. In this regard, my opportunity to visit Singapore and to exchange views with top government officials there may prove, I believe, to be of rather large assistance toward the two countries and toward the future importance of the ROC in Asia. I am extremely pleased to have this chance to meet with you today right after my return so that I can report to you on my visit to Singapore as well as on our thoughts about the future situation between the two countries and the future of Asia. So why don't we start with the questions now, if you'll begin.

Li Yen-chiu (Chinese Television) Q: Mr. President, on your visit to Singapore the Singapore government called you "the president from Taiwan." Are you satisfied with that term? Also, I'd also like to ask you to compare the amount of democracy and freedom in Singapore with that in the ROC

A: The Republic of China is an independent sovereign state, but as everyone well understands, in our present position under the framework of the United Nations in 1971, we are subject to many limitations in all kinds of activities internationally. The most important task for us at present is how to break through that framework, to develop our country and contribute to international society. This is a big task. They do recognize "one China," but at the same time, internationally under the U.N. framework, they don't recognize us, so inviting me to visit Singapore at this time is already no easy matter, I think. At a time like this, we should do what we have to do instead of being picky about names. So I'm not satisfied, but I have to accept it. Thank you.

Huang Hui-chen (China Times) Q: Mr. President, your trip to Singapore certainly provided you with many points worthy of reference. One characteristic of Singapore is the extreme youth of most of its political leaders, and Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew has plans to arrange for a second generation to take charge after him. Mr. President, after seeing this on your visit to Singapore, do you have any policy toward the cultivation of a second generation of successors in this country? Do you have any concrete choices in mind? There is a lot of speculation about the next vice president and premier. Do you have any plans in mind about these two important positions?

A: Thank you for your question, Mr. Huang. The situation is just the opposite. When Acting President Lim saw me in Singapore, he told me, "The leaders who have come with you today are all extremely young; I admire that." And when the cabinet was reorganized after the Thirteenth Party Congress last July, the ladies and gentlemen of the press assembled here wrote a lot about it being a "probational cabinet"--which shows that we had a plan even then for younger people to carry on. Our cabinet became younger after that reform by more than ten years, I recall, and that indicates how seriously we consider these questions. But as to how those two important positions that were just mentioned will be arranged in the future, I think that I had better not reply at this time.

Chen Chao-ju (Taiwan Television) Q: Mr. President, we established diplomatic rela tions not long ago with the Bahamas, and now you have personally visited Singapore. These two actions have been heartening news for us in the extremely difficult diplomatic situation we are in. Is a next step planned, I wonder, and what are your ideas and plans?

A: Thank you, Ms. Chen. As to your question, there are no concrete conceptions that can be reported at this time, but Minister Lien, to my right, will certainly be drawing up plans, and I believe that we are doing our best. We are subject to many restraints under the 1971 U.N. framework, as I just said, and we have difficulties, but sometimes I think that maybe there's a problem with the designation that we just mentioned. If we constantly think about this question, I don't think we can work our way out. We have to do what we can, step by step, and develop from there, before we can try to reach our final goal. That is the direction in which we should strive.

Lin Yih-ling (Central Daily News) Q: President Lee, at the reception for dignitaries traveling to Singapore you mentioned that you and Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew had held comprehensive talks on relations between the two countries and on the question of the future of Asia and had come to fairly similar views. In addition, you just mentioned that the ROC will play a more important role in Asia. Could you give a more detailed explanation in this area?

A: Thank you, Ms. Lin. This question was one of those that we discussed in great depth. Under present circumstances, some areas cannot be reported to you yet but there is one point that we should understand concerning the future development of the countries, centered around the newly industrialized countries. Viewed from the perspective of economic development, it is an undeniable fact that the center of the entire economy of the Pacific region has slowly shifted from the United States to the Western Pacific region, and the potential for the future development of economic power in this region is, in fact, fairly large. Politically, we should understand, what may soon happen is that dialogue between the Chinese Communists and the Soviet Union along with the issue of peace in Cambodia may cause tension in the East Asian region to slowly decline after a period of time, and the countries of the region will be eager to build themselves up and reform their economies. In this situation, the ROC has forty years of rich experience, and coordinating our experience and our economic power with the development of these couniries is something I think ought to be done. So in this regard Prime Minister Lee and I have fairly consistent views.

Yang Hui-chun (Liberty Times) Q: Mr. President, your visit to Singapore has created quite a stir and has pushed your popularity to a peak. The president of Honduras is coming here for a visit next month, and from this series of diplomatic moves and visits of heads of state it can be foreseen that your popularity will continue to grow by leaps and bounds. However, only one year remains of your term, and the public ardently hopes to know whether you wish to succeed yourself in office. May I take this opportunity to ask you to declare whether you wish to run for a second term?

A: Thank you. This question is rather sensitive, and I really haven't considered it up to now. The main reason I haven't is that the country really faces a lot of problems now. We just passed the three major bills in the Legislative Yuan, and after that what remains to be worked on are the phenomenon of social disorder and how to build a basis for politics among lawful political parties. The most important task for me this year is how to lay a good basis for party politics, and all my energy and efforts should be devoted in this direction. As for the question you just asked, I think that as the chairman of the Nationalist Party I have to listen to the views of our central committee, standing central committee, and the rank and file before reaching a final decision. As for myself, I'm conscientiously devoted to building up the ROC in this short period time as a truly modernized nation politically.

Kou Wei-yung (United Daily News) Q: Yesterday morning Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew related his impressions and evaluation of the late President Chiang Ching-kuo and of yourself, President Lee. Today I would like to ask you to talk about your personal impressions of Prime Minister Lee and of Brigadier General Lee Hsien Loong, his son, as well as Prime Minister Lee's achievements in ruling Singapore by authoritarian leadership and your evaluation of him.

A: At this juncture, having just left Singapore four hours ago, I may not be in a good position to immediately offer calm and objective criticism. But I do believe he is one of the great leaders in the Asian region. To have brought a country like Singapore--a country without resources, with a population of 2.6 million, without water, food, fuel, or anything--in thirty some years to the stage that it's at wins my great admiration. As a specialist in agriculture and economic development considering the development policies of less advanced regions, I respect him enormously. The country's overall production is only US$23 billion, we should understand, but its imports and exports total more than US$80 billion, and more than 4.6 million tourists visit there each year. It relies on the outside world to spur national development. As a leader, Prime Minister Lee has indeed earned his share of respect internationally, and I heard many words of respect for him among the people of Singapore during my visit. I can tell he is quite extraordinary, really quite extraordinary! As for Minister Lee Hsien Loong, this was the first time I've met him and I don't know him well, so please excuse me from expressing my opinion in this regard. Thank you.

Tung Chung-pai (China Television) Q: Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew stated clearly yesterday that Singapore will follow Indonesia in establishing formal diplomatic relations with the Chinese Communists. Did Prime Minister Lee obtain your understanding in this regard during your visit, Mr. President, and did you come to a consensus? Given the policy of equidistance that has always been adopted by the government of Singapore in the past, the ROC's flexible diplomacy, and Prime Minister Lee's being considered a message carrier between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, did your visit result in the achievement to a certain degree of anticipated goals under this complex relationship?

A: This question is the subject of fair amount of concern and discussion with everyone. Frankly speaking, we well understand that Prime Minister Lee's statement is routine and something that has been said before over and over again. The same things are being said now that were said thirty years ago. Only now Indonesia has started to move toward establishing ties with the Chinese Communists. Will Singapore? He has always said, "I've already said that we may establish ties." For me, the question of whether it wants to establish ties is one thing, and the question of the ROC and Singapore is another. My personal view is not to worry about what it all means as long as the relationship between the ROC and Singapore can progress. We did exchange ideas on the question of why Indonesia suddenly changed its attitude and what kinds of problems the situation might produce. But I don't think it will be harmful to us.

Andrew Browne (Reuters News Agency) Q: President Lee, some people say that your visit to Singapore, a country with which the ROC lacks diplomatic relations, means that your diplomacy is becoming more and more flexible. What is your view?

A: As I said before, many countries have advocated the concept of "one China" since we withdrew from the U.N. In fact, we are placed in an extremely unfavorable situation. At a time when our economy is slowly developing and our investors want to increase foreign trade and investment relations, if the government doesn't back them up and help them, I think the public would be opposed. Under these conditions, instead of talking about "flexible diplomacy" at a very high, idealized level, I want to go step by step. If we want to develop the economy, we have to deal with economic problems, and other problems should be handled step by step, too. Other questions that I think are too idealistic I'm not going to think about or carry out. But what should the main thrust of the nation be? The importance and independence of our country must be maintained. I would also like to take this opportunity to report to you that the Singapore government accorded me most courteous treatment during my visit. The reception and arrangements they made may have been better than those that a country with which we have relations might have made, and they may have accorded me even better treatment. So when I left Singapore I wired back my thanks while I was still over their airspace. The meaning, I think, is that even without diplomatic relations things can be done quite well.

Chen I-mei (Independence Morning Post) Q: The President's trip to Singapore has received a great deal of attention, and we have seen rich results in economic and trade relations, but the Chinese people are also greatly concerned about another question, which is whether you have any further views after meeting their leaders on bilateral military cooperation between the ROC and Singapore, which has always been fairly close. In particular, Singapore has already indicated that it hopes to maintain the "Starlight program" with us after it establishes ties with Communist China in the future. What is our attitude in this regard?

A: This question may well involve Singapore's relations with Indonesia and Malaysia. In the present situation, as I just said, Prime Minister Lee, in the difficult situation just after independence, wanted his country to stand up, and we extended a helping hand, which is a fact, causing the situation to calm down, which was hard to come by. So when he mentioned his feelings for the late President Chiang Ching-kuo, that was the reason for his respect for him and the importance of his friendship. As to the question of whether there is a new plan, I don't have any view at this time, but I trust that there will be some progress after First Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong visits in April, and we'll be able to understand more about this question then. Thank you.

Rainy Lin (China Times Express) Q: Mr. President, you mentioned discussing the subject of the "Taiwan experience" with Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. But the Taiwan experience must be backed by solid economic and trade strength. Many big businessmen in our country, like Wang Yung-ching, Chao Ting-chen, and Chang Jung-fa, have stated recently that they don't plan to continue large-scale investment on Taiwan. During your visit to Singapore you stressed more than once that we have ways to deal with the problems of large-scale domestic enterprises as well as small and mid-sized ones. Could you cite one or two concrete examples in illustration? The Chinese people would very much like to know the substance of these measures.

A: As to the questions you just raised, Mr. Wang and Mr. Chang are both good friends of mine, and neither of them has told me anything about not wanting to invest in Taiwan. It may have been a case at times of letting off steam with outsiders. Actually, these problems are ones that they seriously want to solve, and the government is going to help them. They definitely don't have the old concepts of the past, that unions can't be formed, about workers' wages, the question of bonuses, that workers are asking too much, and so forth. I think our entrepreneurs are gradually becoming more open-minded and less narrow in their thinking now, so I would ask you not to worry about this point. As for the second question, about concrete measures, I don't think it would be a good time to point them out one by one at this time. But everyone knows, if you look at the problems that have occurred here since the eve of the Chinese New Year--the stoppage of busses in Feng-yuan, Kaohsiung, and Pingtung and the surrounding of Lin Yuan Industrial District in protest against pollution--why have they all of a sudden gone away? How have these problems been disposed of so suddenly? It shows that there are all kinds of different mechanisms operating here, which is why the problems could be solved so rapidly. I can say that under this mechanism we sometimes have to ask the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Commission of Labor to try to think of more solutions. In particular, we hope that mayors, county chiefs, and other local leaders will be more concerned about handling these problems themselves instead of passing them up to their superiors. Should I report any more on this question? I don't think it's very good if the president talks in too much detail about matters of administration. But everyone can see that many problems are obviously different now.

Yeh Ming-hua (United Evening News) Q: Premier Yu visited the Bahamas in January, Mr. President, and now you have visited Singapore in March, both with rather fruitful diplomatic results. We in the news media are rather curious about who plays a more important role in formulating foreign policy, you or Premier Yu? Mr. President, may I ask: if our foreign policy is a car, just who is driving?

A: That's a rather interesting question. The president of the Republic of China, under the Constitution, is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and, what's more, represents the nation, so from this point of view you can see that many of the nation's foreign affairs matters should more or less be the concern of the president, but the mechanics of foreign affairs should be performed by the Executive Yuan, and the premier and the minister of foreign affairs should handle questions of mechanics. But all kinds of foreign affairs matters. be it treaties or the discussion of various problems, should be handled by the president, as the nation's representative. I think this point will be understood by everyone. Thank you.

Chang Mei-hui (China Daily News) Q: According to what you just said, Mr. President, we should boldly go forward to do whatever lies in the nation's interest. According to this principle, I would like to ask you whether we will attend this year's annual meeting of the Asian Development Bank, to be held in Peking? Another question is whether you have a second plan, that is, are you preparing to visit a second country, where is it, and when will you go?

A: As for the question about the Asian Development Bank, I'm not going to say anything just now. Why? Because we're not ready to yet, and I'm afraid they'd try to make a big fuss over there and put our people in a fix before we had even decided whether to go. The newspapers printed stories about my going to Singapore way back around the middle of January and, frankly speaking, it gave the Singapore government a lot of trouble. Why did it give them trouble? Because the Communists immediately tried to use all kinds of methods and pressures to block it. That is a fact. So I'm not going to say, and I can't say, just how we'll handle the ADB question right now, but I will when the time comes. The Singapore visit was a first. Will there be a second? A third? If there's a need. I'd make a hundred trips for the country. After the first step has been taken, there's bound to be a second. How could we stop at just one?

Kuo Yueh (Youth Daily News) Q: Mr. President, following your trip to Singapore, do you have any concrete methods to adopt for us to replace Hong Kong in the trans-shipment business? Also, the cultural, environmental, and financial facilities that you visited during your trip are areas in which they are highly advanced. What points do you feel are worth studying or emulating?

A: As for the transshipment question, Kaohsiung harbor is being rapidly expanded in the area of container shipment right now. But we still can't spur the development of our country with tourism and transshipping to the same extent as Singapore. Considered as models of economic development, our country and theirs may be typical examples of different categories. My second day there I went to see the foreign exchange market and the futures market, which they also plan to build up, to make it easier for foreigners who come to Singapore to do business or to buy foreign exchange. These are qualifications that we really don't possess at present. We haven't even set up an inter-bank market of U.S. dollars yet. I hope that work in this area will gradually pick up under the policy of liberalization and internationalization. So if you want to talk about our transshipment trade or setting up a lot of cultural facilities to attract tourists and so forth, I think we still have a way to go. These tasks take a fairly long time to accomplish. I have also asked Mayor Wu to look into this--not to look at the present, but to look at its history, at how it did what it did. History is more important than conditions at present. Not everything can be completed overnight, just as Rome wasn't built in a day.

Tu Hung-en (Cheng Sheng Broadcasting Coporation) Q: Singapore is a Chinese society, we know, and it also possesses some of the characteristics of Western countries. You said that your gift to them of a set of the Ssu-k'u ch'uan-shu [The Complete Library of the Four Branches of Books] possesses cultural significance. What differences do you perceive in the forms of cultural expression in Singapore and the ROC?

A: I have one consideration in talking about this question, and that is this: Just what is the position occupied by the Republic of China in the Chinese historical tradition? The Republic of China is a legitimate heir, I feel, a government of legitimate inheritance. Why do I say that? The last time Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew went to Sun Moon Lake I told him that the bones of Hsuan Tsang of the T'ang dynasty had been brought and laid in the pagoda. The meaning is that Chinese culture disappeared from the mainland after the Communists took over. They can't promote Chinese culture. The only ones who are developing it and working to carry it on is the Republic of China. So in 1983 when the ROC decided to reprint the Ssu-k'u ch'uan-shu and distribute it to other countries, we wanted to express that we are a government that truly wants to preserve and develop Chinese culture. It was in this context that I presented him with a set of the Ssu-k'u ch'uan-shu, to say that the Republic of China is the heir of Chinese culture. The second point is to say that we have the money and the means to reprint it. There are two sets of the Ssu-k'u ch'uan-shu on the mainland, but they don't have the money or the means to reprint them. We do, and I'm giving you a set--if you want to inherit Chinese culture, I think this is the best way. The three greatest works of Chinese culture are said to be the Great Wall, the Grand Canal, and the Ssu-k'u ch'uan-shu. The value of one lies in national defense, of the second in transportation, and of the third in culture. This was the thinking with which I presented him with a set of the Ssu-k'u ch'uan-shu. In fact, if you consider their entire social structure, I have a feeling that they lack what in English is called an "indigenous" tradition. So I think that our gift will be a big help in allowing him to set up and realize something of real tradition there.

Khor Soon Kia (Shin Min Daily News, Singapore) Q: Mr. President, what was the deepest impression you had of the nation of Singapore during your visit? Secondly, Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew has made many visits to both Taiwan and the mainland. Did your discussions with Prime Minister Lee during your visit to Singapore touch on the subject of mainland China?

A: Singapore is a modernized nation, advanced on modern concepts, modern laws, and modern management. To have built up the country to this stage during the past thirty-some years, as I said, makes me greatly admire Prime Minister Lee and consider him quite extraordinary. He and I did not discuss anything about mainland China, because the subject is meaningless. Why do I say that? He often goes to the mainland, but he is still a Singaporean, after all. If I talked with him, and he got the idea that I wanted him to convey a message, that would be awful! In fact, when it comes to the Chinese Communists, we're quite clear about them ourselves and we don't need to go through him to understand anything. So when we talked about the entire Asian region, the only thing we didn't talk about was the mainland situation. He didn't ask, and I didn't answer, so we just didn't talk about it.

Tryn Bagger (Berlingske Tidende, Denmark) Q: Mr. President, is there a possibility you might pay a formal visit to Singapore after the Chinese Communists build an embassy there? If so, does that mean you might visit some countries in the future that the Chinese Communists have formal diplomatic relations with?

A: Thank you, your Chinese is very good, and your questions are very hard to answer. If a Chinese Communist embassy were built there and Singapore courteously invited me--supposing I were still president--I should go, shouldn't I? That is something between Singa pore and them and not between Singapore and us. And if other countries, such as Japan, dare invite me, then I dare to go. It's that simple. Denmark is the same. If your country invited me, I'd go with my head held high--to see your premier, to talk abou the future of the European common market and how we might contribute to it. I could do it, and I think it's something that should be done.

Huang Yu-chen (China Central News Agency) Q: Mr. President, you said that although you were unhappy with Singapore's calling you "President Lee from Taiwan," you could accept it. Many people think that the new formula "from Taiwan" could be of value to us as a way to break through the name problem in international organizations. Would the designation "from Taiwan" be appropriate for us to use in the future in participating in international organizations, either officially or in private groups?

A: There is a whole stack of formulas for this. There's one for the Asian Development Bank, one for the Olympics, and all kinds of different formulas already. Meanwhile the Republic of China continues to exist. Whether someone calls me "Teng," or "Hui," I'm still the same person, so I think these questions depend on the circumstances. The Singaporean government very courteously invited me to visit, they asked us to send people to make arrangements, and the arrangements they made may have been even better and more polite than those for many visitors from the mainklnd, weren't they? So suppose I hadn't gone because I was unhappy that they called me "President Lee from Taiwan" instead of president of the Republic of China--what would have been the point in that? We should all think a little. In fact they have their standpoint, too. If they had called me the president of the Republic of China, they would have had all kinds of problems there as soon as it appeared in the papers, and our going there would have increased their troubles. Since we went there to solve problems between the two countries, I think that sometimes we have to rely on the word "patience." I wasn't satisfied, but we should be able to accept it. What will the formula be in the future? I don't know. In breaking through the present situation, I hope that everyone will help the government move step by step. That's very important. Don't let little problems like these make it hard for the government to act. These are problems that have been around for years, and we know that breaking through difficulties can't always be done at once. When our economy has improved a little, then let's use the economy to advance the friendship of the two countries. If there's a problem after that, then let's talk about it at the ministerial level. Take it step by step. After the ministers have talked, then see if it's time for the presidents to come in. That's going step by step. And maybe by then they will say "president of the ROC" instead of "president from Taiwan." Going step by step like this will make things easier to solve. Rather than thinking all the time about jumping all at once up to a very high ideal by the method of leaps and bounds, it's better to go step by step. I think we'll have a good way to break through the present difficulties, comparatively speaking, in the future.

Tung Chung-pai (China Television) Q: Would the President please evaluate the diplomatic performance of Chiang Hsiao-wu, the ROC's representative to Singapore? Also, when you were in Singapore you specially mentioned that you were the first leader in our country to advocate expanding the government's public powers. Well, having experienced the public powers and rule of law in Singapore, do you have any further thoughts or approaches toward extending the public powers in our country?

A: Mr. Chiang is extremely responsible and industrious. If the arrangements for this visit were as successful all-round as they turned out, it should go to his credit. This point goes without saying, I think. His work in Singapore achieved considerable results. The second question is that of public power. People misunderstand public power when they think of it as the government getting a bigger and bigger fist, as no voice for the people, as everything controlled by the government. That's not what it means. Actually, public power means the government is an executive body. Where do the government's powers come from? Where does its money come from? The government is a body of popular will. It's an executive agency that is asked to carry out the laws, through the budget, passed by the legislative units and bodies of popular will. Dr. Sun Yat-sen said, "The people have the power; public servants have the ability to carry it out." This statement was not made casually. The government must do everything properly and according to laws and regulations. It's a plain and simple sentence, and that's just what public power means.

Tsai Wen-hsi (Min Chung Daily News) Q: Mr. President, according to reports, Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore indicated yesterday that your leadership style does not belong to the hands-off style of management. Could you evaluate your leadership style yourself?

A: You misspoke yourself. He didn't say that. What he said was that in times of extreme difficulty President Chiang Ching-kuo handled each problem calmly and collectedly. He said that he was a problem-solving president. That was what he said, wasn't it? But he said that he hadn't seen whether I would be just as calm and collected at a time of great national emergency and lead the country through step by step, so that was the difference between us. But I think that the passing of President Chiang Ching-kuo was a most difficult moment for the Republic of China. He may not have thought of that. Does everyone remember that difficult time? I have no special abilities, I said, but I will do my utmost. When something comes up, I will pray every day or handle it the way Mr. Chiang Ching-kuo would have told me. My way of doing things is to see that the policies of President Chiang are carried through to the full. If you study the question, you'll find that the subtle difference is just there.

Kent Wang (ICRT radio) Q: President Lee, you mentioned several times that your trip to Singapore was very important for the future position of the ROC in Asia. I wonder whether you talked about setting up an organization of regional cooperation among the countries of Southeast Asia or Asia in your meetings with government leaders in Singapore.

A: The European Common Market is scheduled to become a unified market in 1992, but whether it will be set up in 1992 is not yet clear. My personal view is that it will be difficult. The first problem is that the differences in agricultural productivity are too great. When agricultural productivity differs too much, prices also differ widely. This situation can occur in the European Common Market, but in a unified market different prices won't hold up. This means that the farm problem must be solved first, and after that there has to a unified currency on the money market. But despite this situation, they are working very hard at studying how to solve the problem and how to proceed with regulations. The direction is correct, I think. But as to when it can be set up, I feel a certain period of time is still needed. Along with it a free trade zone might be set up in the U.S. and Canada, perhaps even including Mexico some time in the future. But this free trade zone is still an initial conception. Will those of us in the Asian region set up something similar because of this? I think if everyone goes about this one after the other, it will mean big problems for the whole world. The world still needs interchange, and maintaining an economy of regional blocks could set off a global recession. Even if everyone in the Asian region wanted to cooperate, I believe that we still must not form barriers with those outside the region. My view is still mainly for a division of labor in the distribution of production resources. It's better if restrictions aren't set up outside regions too. Prime Min ister Hawke of Australia, for example, recently proposed setting up an organization like the OECD in the Asian region. Will we? It's an idea, but I personally think there are too many countries. Europe is actually one in culture. If the countries there differ, they all still use the Latin alphabet and are rather consistent in thinking. But in Asia, just think about the differences in religion, race, ways of life, and other aspects. True cooperation in this region will still take a rather long period of time. As I said, Japan and newly industrialized countries such as Korea, the Republic of China, Hong Kong, and Singapore are rather close. But if it were expanded to other areas, I don't know when it could set up. So in itself it's an idea, but we have to examine its practicability.

Chiu Jean-ssu (Asiaweek, Hong Kong) Q: Mr. President, we know that you pay close attention to foreign affairs. Singapore recently mentioned on two separate occasions that it is going to establish relations with the Chinese Communists, which will test the degree of our flexible diplomacy. May I ask what your view is of dual recognition? And does the theory of dual recognition conflict with the policy of "one China"?

A: The question of dual recognition isn't our problem, is it? It's a question of whether the other side recognizes it. Prime Minister Lee has always advocated that China is one country, and the United Nations recognized the same thing in 1971. The U.N. recognizes the Chinese Communists, and the name ROC is never mentioned in its reports. Under this situation, can I move forward to the subject of dual recognition? I would be happy if I could, wouldn't I? But what's the best way to strive actively for dual recognition? I think it's to work step by step from substantive relations. As I said, as long as it truly helps both countries, there always will come a time when they have no choice but to recognize us. But to raise the question right at the start is a bit premature, isn't it?

Chang Shui-chiang (Commercial Times) Q: The ROC and Singapore seem to have reached an agreement this time to hold irregularly scheduled bilateral meetings in the future at the ministerial level. I would like to ask the President what form this type of meeting will take once Singapore and the Chinese Communists establish relations. You specifically expressed a rather high interest in financial cooperation between the two countries. How should financial cooperation between the two countries be carried out? In what areas could a realistic cooperative relationship be established in a short period of time?

A: The exchange of ideas and talks at the ministerial level could be termed an important result of our talks this time. Even if Singapore establishes relations with the Chinese Communists, I believe that ministerial-level talks will be carried out as before without hindrance. Because Singapore has almost twenty years of expressing the attitude of the U.N. toward the Chinese Communists, but it has around thirty years of substantive foreign relations with us, doesn't it? I believe we should be able to continue with this work. He has the same thinking, and the plan itself was something we worked out together during our talks. So you can see that we've set up a rather long-range method of our own. The second question, that of financial cooperation, hasn't been discussed yet. The two most important things this time, both of which are about to approach the signing stage, were the question of investment guarantees and that of the "temporary customs clearance agreement." These things will be a big help toward the economy and trade of both countries. If we can cooperate further in the future, I believe it could be in technology and oil refining. As for the area of finance, as I just said, we haven't laid a foundation in international financial areas ourselves yet, so we'll have to wait until we have, and then how to link up with their futures and capital markets is a later question, I think. For now, I believe that future cooperation in technology could be important in our relationship with Singapore. Last time he was here, I took Prime Minister Lee to see a young person at a farm in Puli whose farm uses the method of cell division to produce flower seedlings. They are highly interested in high technology, they want to do it, and I believe in fact that 10 percent of Taiwan's 1.6 million farmers may have performed cell division, so you can see how intelligent our farmers are. They are extremely strong in both techniques and ability. Thank you.

Closing remarks by Shaw Yu-ming, director-general of the Government Information Office:

I recall that President Lee's press conference last year was originally scheduled for an hour and a half and concluded after one hour and 52 minutes. Today's press conference was originally scheduled to last half an hour, but the president has given us nearly 80 minutes of his time. This fully demonstrates that the president wishes to communicate with the public and shrink the distance between the government and the people, and we admire him greatly for it. We shall all rise together and thank him, I am sure.

[Picture Caption]

President Lee also had a relaxed moment, wearing a flower-patterned shir t and laughing heartily. (photo by Fu Liann Bang)

President Lee and his group visited the Singapore International Monetary Exchange, where they received a brief report. (photo by Chen Mi n-jeng)

President Lee's trip to Singapore made a new mark for "flexible diplomacy." (photo by Chen Min-jeng)

ROC citizens in Singapore hosted a welcoming fete for President Lee. (photo by Chen Min-jeng)

On the golf course, President Lee hit each ball with earnest concentration. （photo by Chen Min-jeng）

President Lee at Sun Moon Lake, dressed casually, talks happily with Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, who made a special visit. （photo by Lee Pei-huei）

ROC citizens in Singapore hosted a welcoming fete for President Lee. （photo by Chen Min-jeng）