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.
China badly misread Japan. It sought to intimidate Tokyo into silence on Taiwan. Instead, it has achieved the opposite by hardening Japanese resolve. By trying to bludgeon a major power like Japan into accepting its “red lines” — above all on Taiwan — China laid bare the raw coercive logic of compellence now driving its foreign policy toward Asian states. From the Taiwan Strait and the East and South China Seas to the Himalayan frontier, Beijing has increasingly relied on economic warfare, diplomatic intimidation and military pressure to bend neighbors to its will. Confident in its growing power, China appeared to believe
Taiwan-India relations appear to have been put on the back burner this year, including on Taiwan’s side. Geopolitical pressures have compelled both countries to recalibrate their priorities, even as their core security challenges remain unchanged. However, what is striking is the visible decline in the attention India once received from Taiwan. The absence of the annual Diwali celebrations for the Indian community and the lack of a commemoration marking the 30-year anniversary of the representative offices, the India Taipei Association and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center, speak volumes and raise serious questions about whether Taiwan still has a coherent India
Recent media reports have again warned that traditional Chinese medicine pharmacies are disappearing and might vanish altogether within the next 15 years. Yet viewed through the broader lens of social and economic change, the rise and fall — or transformation — of industries is rarely the result of a single factor, nor is it inherently negative. Taiwan itself offers a clear parallel. Once renowned globally for manufacturing, it is now best known for its high-tech industries. Along the way, some businesses successfully transformed, while others disappeared. These shifts, painful as they might be for those directly affected, have not necessarily harmed society
Legislators of the opposition parties, consisting of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), on Friday moved to initiate impeachment proceedings against President William Lai (賴清德). They accused Lai of undermining the nation’s constitutional order and democracy. For anyone who has been paying attention to the actions of the KMT and the TPP in the legislature since they gained a combined majority in February last year, pushing through constitutionally dubious legislation, defunding the Control Yuan and ensuring that the Constitutional Court is unable to operate properly, such an accusation borders the absurd. That they are basing this