“Reading the water meter” (查水表, cha shuibiao) is an ordinary expression that in China has taken on the additional meaning of police officers getting people to open their doors by claiming that they are there to read the water meter, or some other excuse. It also includes situations where the police leave notices instructing people to attend interviews.
During the past couple of weeks, the expression has been heard all over the place in Taiwan, where the police are being accused of using such tactics.
Criminal Investigation Bureau Commissioner Huang Ming-chao (黃明昭) spoke to the media to refute these accusations, presenting statistics and insisting that the police only investigate unlawful activities and never “read the water meter.”
Nonetheless, some people with preconceived opinions have continued to make the accusations.
All this talk of “reading the water meter” might make sense in China, but Taiwanese police never “read the meter.” They do not need to, because they have good relations with the public and when they interview people, they get straight to the point, without beating about the bush.
Besides, water meters in Taiwan are usually located in the fire-break alleys between buildings, on the roof or in other common areas, so who would open their door to let someone in to read the water meter?
It would be fair to say that those who accuse Taiwanese police of “reading the water meter” are actually using disinformation to put the police in a difficult position.
In this post-truth era, democracies around the world are under siege by disinformation. Fake news fiercely attacks one of the key characteristics of democratic societies, namely that people have the right to doubt something and seek out the truth about it. In this way, fake news undermines the very core of democracy. Intellectuals, journalists and policymakers worldwide are examining this dystopian narrative.
The main narratives communicated in the post-truth era are influenced by independent social media, while public social media and the news industry are no longer in the mainstream. When anyone can publish something, some people with ulterior motives set out to intentionally mislead the public, which is pushing democracy into a state of emergency.
There is a need to uphold the right to seek the truth, which lies at the core of democracy, while also being able to censure fake news, which is harmful. This is clearly not a crisis that can be resolved either by extreme laissez-faire or by groundless accusations.
Political philosophers Johan Farkas and Jannick Schou critique existing solutions, saying that they neglect that democracy has never been about the search for truth alone: It is equally about the free speech and opinions of democratic people.
However, in the post-truth era, all democratic countries are suffering from how fake news uses freedom of speech to undermine democracy. A fair, forthright judicial system is crucial to truly safeguard democracy and soberly diagnose cases of fake news.
After investigating cases reported by victims, those cases can then be fairly transferred to judicial institutions for speedy review. Only by doing so can freedom of speech be safeguarded and those responsible for launching fake news attacks be uncovered.
Huang took it upon himself to explain how police departments investigate cases of fake news, saying that police always enforce the law on the basis of “reasonable grounds” and that these “reasonable grounds” apply within a fair and democratic system.
When someone comes forward to report a case, the police, having accepted the case as reported, launch an investigation to determine the truth. Having done so, they might transfer the case to judicial bodies, which proceed to review it.
Huang said that police never “shoot at random” or “read the water meter.”
This is precisely the kind of fair law enforcement that can safeguard a democratic society in the post-truth era from being maliciously attacked by disinformation, while at the same time protecting freedom of speech.
Samuel Lin is a police officer.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Chinese state-owned companies COSCO Shipping Corporation and China Merchants have a 30 percent stake in Kaohsiung Port’s Kao Ming Container Terminal (Terminal No. 6) and COSCO leases Berths 65 and 66. It is extremely dangerous to allow Chinese companies or state-owned companies to operate critical infrastructure. Deterrence theorists are familiar with the concepts of deterrence “by punishment” and “by denial.” Deterrence by punishment threatens an aggressor with prohibitive costs (like retaliation or sanctions) that outweigh the benefits of their action, while deterrence by denial aims to make an attack so difficult that it becomes pointless. Elbridge Colby, currently serving as the Under
The Ministry of the Interior on Thursday last week said it ordered Internet service providers to block access to Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (小紅書, also known as RedNote in English) for a year, citing security risks and more than 1,700 alleged fraud cases on the platform since last year. The order took effect immediately, abruptly affecting more than 3 million users in Taiwan, and sparked discussions among politicians, online influencers and the public. The platform is often described as China’s version of Instagram or Pinterest, combining visual social media with e-commerce, and its users are predominantly young urban women,
Most Hong Kongers ignored the elections for its Legislative Council (LegCo) in 2021 and did so once again on Sunday. Unlike in 2021, moderate democrats who pledged their allegiance to Beijing were absent from the ballots this year. The electoral system overhaul is apparent revenge by Beijing for the democracy movement. On Sunday, the Hong Kong “patriots-only” election of the LegCo had a record-low turnout in the five geographical constituencies, with only 1.3 million people casting their ballots on the only seats that most Hong Kongers are eligible to vote for. Blank and invalid votes were up 50 percent from the previous
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi lit a fuse the moment she declared that trouble for Taiwan means trouble for Japan. Beijing roared, Tokyo braced and like a plot twist nobody expected that early in the story, US President Donald Trump suddenly picked up the phone to talk to her. For a man who normally prefers to keep Asia guessing, the move itself was striking. What followed was even more intriguing. No one outside the room knows the exact phrasing, the tone or the diplomatic eyebrow raises exchanged, but the broad takeaway circulating among people familiar with the call was this: Trump did
RSS