The world of high-stakes diplomacy often operates on subtle signals—a nod, a strategic seating arrangement, or, in this latest global flashpoint, a brief, impromptu handshake. This universal gesture of courtesy, typically mundane, has suddenly become a lightning rod for national debate in the Philippines, dividing the nation’s social media landscape and sparking an intense political feud. The controversy centers on President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.’s decision to approach and shake the hand of Chinese President Xi Jinping during the APEC chairmanship handover ceremony in South Korea, a seemingly small act fraught with enormous geopolitical weight given the escalating maritime dispute in the West Philippine Sea.

The moment, captured on November 1, 2025, was far from choreographed. In a brief lull during the ceremonial handover, President Marcos, against the backdrop of strained bilateral ties and the omnipresent security detail surrounding the Chinese leader, made a deliberate, determined move. He walked up to Xi Jinping, who was settling into his seat, extended his hand, and offered congratulations on China’s assumption of the 2026 APEC chairmanship. This spontaneous action, which Marcos later described as merely “common courtesy,” was immediately interpreted through two starkly different lenses by the Filipino public, exposing the deep fissures in the nation’s political psyche.

On one side stand the critics, led largely by voices the speaker, “Batang Maynila,” attributes to DDS—Duterte Diehard Supporters—trolls. Their reaction was immediate, visceral, and overwhelmingly negative, reflecting a profound sense of betrayal. The handshake was branded as the “handshake ni Hudas” (Judas’ handshake), an act of political treachery. Accusations of hypocrisy and “kaplastikan” (insincerity) flew across social media platforms. Critics argued that the President, who has consistently and strongly challenged China’s aggressive actions in the West Philippine Sea, had contradicted his own stance, essentially surrendering the moral high ground and diplomatic leverage for a fleeting moment of civility. How, they questioned, could a leader be a fierce critic one day and a genial well-wisher the next? This condemnation is rooted in an emotional, black-and-white view of international relations: an adversary is always an adversary, and any gesture of goodwill is a sign of submission. For the critics, the handshake signaled a dangerous softening of resolve, an act that could lead the international community to question the Philippines’ conviction in defending its sovereignty.

This is where the political analysis turns complex. The speaker, while acknowledging the public’s right to outrage, strongly dismisses these interpretations as short-sighted, even “idiotic.” The central defense is that diplomacy does not equate to submission. In the theatre of international politics, common courtesy is often the sharpest tool, a necessary lubricant for communication even—and especially—between rivals. Marcos himself highlighted the difficulty of even approaching President Xi due to his heavy security cordon, suggesting that he seized a rare, unplanned moment to simply acknowledge his counterpart, which he felt was necessary to avoid a perceived slight that could further sour relations. The move, therefore, was not an apology for previous strong rhetoric, nor was it a retraction of the country’s sovereign claims; rather, it was an attempt to keep the door ajar for future, substantive dialogue on a parallel track.

To truly appreciate the nuance, one must look past the immediate emotion and consider the strategic implication. The speaker passionately argues for a “positive mindset,” suggesting that the handshake could be a precursor to something genuinely beneficial for the Philippines. What if, they posit, this diplomatic opening leads to a high-level agreement to de-escalate tensions, perhaps even a fair deal that protects Filipino fishermen and secures the country’s sovereign rights in the West Philippine Sea? By demonstrating a willingness to engage professionally, despite the deep-seated grievances, PBBM may have been attempting to inject a much-needed element of civility into a relationship dangerously spiraling toward outright confrontation.

This interpretation is predicated on the idea of a calculated risk and a conscious act of sacrifice. The speaker emphasizes that the President knew he would be slammed by critics. He understood that his political opponents would jump on the gesture, twisting it into evidence of his weakness or insincerity. Yet, he proceeded anyway. The argument is made that this was a moment of leadership born out of humility, where the national interest—the potential for de-escalation, peace, and trade—was prioritized over personal or political pride.

The contrast between the two viewpoints is profound: the DDS-led critique views the handshake as a personal moral failure, while the analyst-backed defense frames it as a strategic diplomatic success. In the latter view, the handshake is a powerful signal to Beijing that Manila can distinguish between economic, cultural, and multilateral cooperation (which occurs at APEC) and the specific, highly contentious issue of the maritime dispute. By separating the two, the Philippines seeks to compartmentalize the conflict, preventing the territorial row from contaminating the entirety of the bilateral relationship. This is the essence of a “balancing act” in foreign policy—maintaining dialogue with a major regional power like China, particularly on economic platforms like APEC, while simultaneously strengthening defense and economic ties with allies like the United States.

However, the public’s skepticism is not entirely unfounded. The speaker briefly touches on the long-standing issue of corruption, acknowledging that such internal governance failures indeed hurt the country’s image and dampen foreign investment. While defending PBBM’s ongoing anti-corruption efforts as a legacy-building initiative, the core of the mistrust lies in the recent past, particularly the controversial “gentleman’s agreements” with China made under the previous administration, which many Filipinos feel disadvantaged the nation. For a public weary of broken promises and perceived backroom deals, a simple handshake with the head of a state involved in continuous territorial encroachment naturally raises the specter of another compromise at the expense of national interest. This emotional weight transforms a simple diplomatic necessity into a test of the President’s character and commitment.

The speaker’s conclusion is a forceful call for the nation to abandon the “crab mentality”—the destructive tendency to pull down those who are successful or who attempt something bold—and instead, adopt a positive, patriotic perspective. The argument is that if the Filipino people truly want peace and the resolution of the West Philippine Sea conflict, they should support diplomatic efforts that open channels for communication, rather than immediately condemning them. The act of “love your enemies” is cited not just as a biblical moral guide, but as a pragmatic diplomatic strategy: by showing respect, the Philippines may be in a better position to command respect and prevent further escalation of tensions.

Ultimately, the controversy surrounding the Marcos-Xi handshake underscores the immense complexity of foreign policy in the 21st century. It is a world where an impromptu gesture can overshadow meticulously planned speeches, and where domestic political warfare bleeds into international relations. The handshake was an olive branch, extended not in surrender, but in a bid for a strategic opening. Whether this gambit pays off—leading to a “fair agreement” and lasting peace—remains to be seen. But for now, the debate continues, with the nation fiercely divided over whether the President’s move was an act of profound patriotism or political expediency. The truth, as the speaker suggested, lies in the mind of the President himself, and the results will only be visible in the unfolding chapters of Philippine-Chinese relations. The Filipino people, having been assured that the gesture was for their benefit, must now wait and hope that this small moment of civility on a global stage leads to a significant and positive shift in the geopolitical landscape.

This diplomatic encounter serves as a profound reminder that national interests are rarely served by pure belligerence; they are often best advanced through a combination of strength, resolve, and the calculated risk of extending a hand in peace. It’s a delicate, high-wire act, and the audience, the entire nation, is watching with bated breath to see if the tightrope walk ends in a beneficial agreement or a disastrous fall.