Following the suicide last week of Su Chii-cherng (蘇啟誠), director-general of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office’s Osaka branch, the term “fake news” has gained traction, and the Ministry of the Interior is reportedly considering amending the National Security Act (國家安全法) to curb the spread of fake news, which Su in a note said was the reason for his action.
The Shanghai-based online news outlet Guancha Syndicate reported that after Typhoon Jebi, the Chinese embassy in Japan sent a shuttle bus to Kansai International Airport to evacuate Chinese travelers, as well as a group of Taiwanese, but only if they identified themselves as Chinese.
The Chinese consulate in Osaka said that it evacuated 1,044 “Chinese” — including 32 Taiwanese. China’s state-run Xinhua news agency ran the report on Sept. 6, citing the Communist Youth League of China’s WeChat account.
The news was “agonizing” to him, Su wrote.
The Chinese fabrication was picked up by the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post and numerous Taiwanese news outlets, as well as by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Arthur Chen (陳宜民), who at a news conference helped spread the fake news by quoting the Chinese consulate’s figures.
The report was finally debunked on Saturday last week by the non-profit Taiwan FactCheck Center. The group contacted the airport, which said it had turned down the Chinese consulate’s request to send shuttle buses.
Although Representative to Japan Frank Hsieh (謝長廷), Taiwan-Japan Relations Association Secretary-General Chang Shu-ling (張淑玲) and an anonymous Democratic Progressive Party official sought to correct the misinformation by directing public attention to the facts — that the Chinese were evacuated by shuttles operated by the airport — they should have done so much more assertively and through official channels.
Hsieh on Sept. 6 in a Facebook post tried to match the number of Chinese who reportedly left the airport with the total number of evacuees published by the airport and asked the public to “think about” the credibility of the professed Chinese evacuation mission.
Chang provided her reasoning at the KMT news conference, but stopped short of defending Su’s office when Chen countered her with Chinese statistics.
Had the three officials known that Su would commit suicide, they would likely have taken a tougher stance when responding to allegations that Su and his staff had treated stranded Taiwanese with indifference.
While it is impossible to encapsulate here all the messages people could take away from the mishap, three things are clear:
First, fake news spread through the Internet is borderless and can have grave consequences if not curbed quickly.
Second, fake news is a national security issue. If a news story planted by a Chinese entity can lead to the death of a diplomat, imagine how serious the ramifications a fake article could have on national security if it is not adequately addressed.
Third, government agencies must take swift countermeasures to combat fake news. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs should clarify any false reports involving the nation’s diplomats, but given the potential scope of Chinese influence, all agencies concerned have a stake in combating fake news.
The Legislative Yuan, the National Communications Commission and the Ministry of the Interior in particular have the greatest responsibility.
Su’s death was a terrible loss, but it should serve as a wake-up call to the perils of China’s penetration of society.
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)
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) continues to bully Taiwan by conducting military drills extremely close to Taiwan in late May 2024 and announcing a legal opinion in June on how they would treat “Taiwan Independence diehards” according to the PRC’s Criminal Code. This article will describe how China’s Anaconda Strategy of psychological and legal asphyxiation is employed. The CCP’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and Chinese Coast Guard (CCG) conducted a “punishment military exercise” against Taiwan called “Joint Sword 2024A” from 23-24 May 2024, just three days after President William Lai (賴清德) of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was sworn in and