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.
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