“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
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
RSS