Demanding that officials resign whenever a government department is embroiled in controversy is destructive to employee morale and harmful to the nation’s democracy.
In the latest example, some have called for Representative to Japan Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) to step down after the director-general of the Osaka branch of the Taiwan Economic and Cultural Office in Japan, Su Chii-cherng (蘇啟誠), took his life in the aftermath of Typhoon Jebi this month. Su had apparently succumbed to stress after people criticized the office’s response to travelers stranded at Osaka’s Kansai International Airport.
Hsieh on Wednesday said that he still had a lot of work to do to set the record straight regarding Su.
Hsieh’s handling of the issue should be commended, as he is resolute in his efforts to uncover the problems that led to Su’s death, rather than taking another post and hiding until things cool down.
This is how the resignation of an official should be understood — not as a form of justice, but as an escape through the cultural practice of allowing them to “step down a level” to save face — an abrogation of accountability. By stepping down, not only does the official avoid having to solve the issue that led to the controversy, they also leave the department without the leadership with which it is familiar. A replacement lacks that familiarity, and is unaccustomed to the demands of the role.
Asking officials to resign has become so commonplace in the nation’s politics that it is an automatic response whenever something goes wrong.
Former minister of education Pan Wen-chung (潘文忠) in April was forced to resign amid controversy surrounding the legality of National Taiwan University president-elect Kuan Chung-ming (管中閔) taking the post.
Pan’s replacement, Wu Maw-kuen (吳茂昆), lasted less than two months.
Despite his quick resignation, Wu defended the ministry’s position regarding Kuan.
Was shuffling ministers a way to avoid taking decisive action on what had become such a heated topic?
Just last month, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus called for the resignation of Minister of Health and Welfare Chen Shih-chung (陳時中) after a fire at a hospital in New Taipei City’s Sinjhuang District (新莊) killed nine people.
Two months before that, Animal Rescue Team Taiwan spokesperson Anthony Ni (倪京台) called for Animal Protection and Health Inspection Office Director Chen Yuan-chuan (陳淵泉) to step down after it was found that a blind dog had been abandoned on a mountain in New Taipei City by an animal shelter run by the office.
The fire might have been due to negligence and the dog’s abandonment certainly was, but in both cases due process would have seen an investigation to determine where along the chain of command things went awry and what supervisory changes should be implemented to prevent similar incidents.
In the event that top leadership is found to be responsible for a major problem, they should be removed from public office entirely, rather than reshuffled.
A Cabinet reshuffle in February saw then-minister of foreign affairs David Lee (李大維) become National Security Council secretary-general after he was criticized over a mistake in newly designed passports. It seems unlikely that Lee would even have known about the mistake and it was illogical to move him from a position where he had experience to one where he did not.
Resignations and reshuffles should be exceptions, not the rule. Arbitrarily firing someone rarely solves administrative problems.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath