For a government agency that has to deal with numerous threats, such as losing the nation’s handful of diplomatic allies and periodic incidents of Taiwanese delegations being expelled from international events, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has found itself in even deeper trouble after mistakingly using a photograph of Washington Dulles International Airport in its new biometric passport design.
It took the ministry’s Bureau of Consular Affairs almost three years to design and prepare for the launch of the new version of the passport on Monday. Its primary aim was to enhance its anticounterfeit features, given that the last time it was updated was in 2008.
Unfortunately, all it took for something celebratory to go miserably wrong was one careless mistake by a designer — who selected a misidentified photo online and used it as the basis for her draft sketch — followed by oversight by a number of ministry officials who failed to double-check and spot the mistake.
The consequence is that the NT$80 million (US$2.68 million) spent printing 200,000 new passports has gone to waste, with more money needed to redesign and reprint them.
What is more serious than the monetary loss is that the incident has undermined Taiwan’s international credibility. The reason why Taiwanese passport holders are able to enjoy visa-free or landing visa treatment in more than 160 countries, including the US and EU territories, is because of the nation’s stringent passport production and issuance process.
How much trust will the international community place in the Republic of China (ROC) passport, knowing that not one person responsible for overseeing the new passport’s design and production was able to distinguish between a US airport and Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport?
However, what is done cannot be undone. What is needed is a careful look at the organizational structure of the bureau to avoid a recurrence of similar incidents, rather than simply letting a few heads roll as a show of the foreign ministry’s collective remorse — which is exactly what it is doing now.
On Wednesday, both the bureau’s incumbent leader, Agnes Chen (陳華玉), and her predecessor, Representative to Canada Kung Chung-chen (龔中誠), were demoted over the passport mishap.
Chen has accepted the punishment with grace. On the other hand, Kung, who left the bureau in September last year after heading it since 2013, refused to take the demotion lying down, saying that Minister of Foreign Affairs David Lee (李大維) was the one who signed off on the passport’s final design.
The problem with Taiwan’s deep-seated political culture of axing one or more high-ranking officials to solve a crisis is that it is not only ineffective, but it could also deal a crippling blow to the government’s morale.
Neither Chen, Kung nor Lee single-handedly made the mistake. That mistake should fall on the shoulders of each and every person who had their hands on the project over the past three years.
Firing them all solves nothing, because their positions would simply be filled by someone who is also used to doing things the same way that got everyone into this mess in the first place.
The foreign ministry should stop pointing fingers in a desperate attempt to alleviate public fury. It should instead carefully and extensively examine what kinds of organizational flaws could have resulted in this incident.
The devil almost always hides in the details.
The 75th anniversary summit of NATO was held in Washington from Tuesday to Thursday last week. Its main focus was the reinvigoration and revitalization of NATO, along with its expansion. The shadow of domestic electoral politics could not be avoided. The focus was on whether US President Biden would deliver his speech at the NATO summit cogently. Biden’s fitness to run in the next US presidential election in November was under assessment. NATO is acquiring more coherence and teeth. These were perhaps more evident than Biden’s future. The link to the Biden candidacy is critical for NATO. If Biden loses
Shortly after Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) stepped down as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2012, his successor, Xi Jinping (習近平), articulated the “Chinese Dream,” which aims to rejuvenate the nation and restore its historical glory. While defense analysts and media often focus on China’s potential conflict with Taiwan, achieving “rejuvenation” would require Beijing to engage in at least six different conflicts with at least eight countries. These include territories ranging from the South China Sea and East China Sea to Inner Asia, the Himalayas and lands lost to Russia. Conflicts would involve Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia,
The Sino-Indian border dispute remains one of the most complex and enduring border issues in the world. Unlike China’s borders with Russia and Vietnam, which have seen conflicts, but eventually led to settled agreements, the border with India, particularly the region of Arunachal Pradesh, remains a point of contention. This op-ed explores the historical and geopolitical nuances that contribute to this unresolved border dispute. The crux of the Sino-Indian border dispute lies in the differing interpretations of historical boundaries. The McMahon Line, established by the 1914 Simla Convention, was accepted by British India and Tibet, but never recognized by China, which
In a recent interview with the Malaysian Chinese-language newspaper Sin Chew Daily, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) called President William Lai (賴清德) “naive.” As always with Ma, one must first deconstruct what he is saying to fully understand the parallel universe he insists on defending. Who is being “naive,” Lai or Ma? The quickest way is to confront Ma with a series of pointed questions that force him to take clear stands on the complex issues involved and prevent him from his usual ramblings. Regarding China and Taiwan, the media should first begin with questions like these: “Did the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)