There is a saying in China that great statesmen should not allow private affairs to get in the way of official duties. Official appointments should be based on what is in the national interest, and on who is most suited to the job. Leaders should absolutely not make such decisions based on their personal preferences. Appointments are to be made for the benefit of the country, not that of its leaders.
Where exactly do Taiwan-Singapore relations stand at the moment? Was former representative to Singapore Vanessa Shih (史亞平) guilty of dereliction of duty, or was she not? According to a diplomat familiar with Taiwan-Singapore relations, the Singaporean government refused to have dealings with Shih from last year. The reason for this was that she had behaved counter to an agreement made between the two governments when the Taiwan representative office was originally set up in that country.
Politics is the art of compromise, and diplomacy requires face-to-face communication, the goal of which is to ensure both parties’ needs are met. Shih’s main mistake was to take domestic politics with her to Singapore and put them on display. It is little wonder the Singaporean government reacted so strongly. As far as it was concerned, Shih failed to discuss matters prior to the event and showed little in the way of sincerity after the fact. For Singapore, her poor diplomatic skills were a real impediment to relations between the two countries, and it was this that led to the problem.
When the representative office celebrated the centenary of the Republic of China (ROC), Shih was keen to make it quite an ostentatious occasion, putting up ROC flags and having the national anthem performed in rooms where guests from all over the world would be present. She did all this without notifying the Singaporean authorities of her intentions, despite having planned it for some time. The Singaporean Ministry of Foreign Affairs was not happy. Given that the Singaporean government disapproved of Shih’s performance, and that she was even considered persona non grata, it would be difficult to argue that her diplomatic mission over in Singapore had been a success.
There is another saying: “The generals of a defeated army should not speak of bravery, nor a defeated country’s officials of loyalty.”
For ambassadors or representatives stationed abroad, the fulfillment of their basic duties should be a priority. That is, they must maintain good relations with the country in which they are stationed, or they have achieved nothing. Had the ROC representative office in Singapore managed to pull off the centenary celebrations — flags, national anthem and all — without annoying the Singaporean government, that would have been a major diplomatic success. However, it did not, and that compromised its ability to function properly.
Shih may well be patriotic, but being patriotic is not her job, and in fact can at times be counterproductive. Diplomacy requires discretion. Shih, though, is one of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) favored generals, and he has viewed her failings with a more sympathetic eye than he would those of others. Because of her actions, the government of the country in which she was stationed refused to have any further dealings with her. She lost the trust of the Singaporean authorities, and was consequently, and regrettably, unable to function as the representative of our government.
Since the country in which she had been stationed refused to have dealings with her, it is quite evident that Shih had failed in her job. She was not able to fulfill the most fundamental task of maintaining the integrity of the ROC in that country, to the extent that our government had little choice but to recall her. As far as Ma is concerned, he has to learn the importance of choosing people who are most suited to a task, rather than those he just happens to like. If he does not, he will only end up looking like an amateur.
Chu Yen-kuei is a lecturer of law at National Open University.
Translated by Paul Cooper
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS