Early this month, Kuma Academy, a Taiwanese civil defense organization, released a disaster supply kit priced at NT$1,380. The kit includes practical survival items, such as a water-powered flashlight and a lightweight water filter. What began as a civic initiative quickly escalated into a political flash point.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was quick to denounce the kit as overpriced, accusing Kuma Academy of “disaster profiteering.” The Hualien County Government further intensified the controversy by distributing similar kits for free — a move seen as a pointed challenge. However, the government-issued kits themselves raised questions after it was revealed that they contain simplified Chinese characters, suggesting ties to products sourced from China.
Lawmakers from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) defended Kuma Academy, clarifying that its kits were assembled using components imported from the US and Japan, not from China. However, the damage was already done: A discussion about disaster readiness devolved into a media circus filled with accusations, nationalism and political posturing.
What unfolded over the following days was far more calculated. The Facebook page Politics by Volume (聲量看政治) analyzed more than 70 news headlines over 10 days, uncovering a coordinated three-phase attack.
From June 10 to June 14, media coverage focused on the kit’s price, with headlines comparing it with cheaper alternatives on Amazon and deriding it as the “Hermes of survival kits.”
From June 15 to Tuesday last week, the narrative shifted to insinuations of ulterior motives, including unfounded allegations about the organization’s founder, DPP Legislator Puma Shen (沈伯洋), and alleged ties to China.
On Wednesday and Thursday last week, the campaign peaked with comparisons to Hualien’s free kits. Headlines featured divisive slogans such as “Hualien gives for free, Kuma sells for NT$1,380,” framing the purchase as a political litmus test.
This is not genuine public discourse. It is nothing but orchestrated cognitive warfare.
Instead of a sincere debate about the value or utility of a disaster supply kit, the narrative was hijacked by a barrage of coordinated content across platforms, including doxxing, viral videos and widespread reposts. Local governments even joined the fray with sarcastic price comparisons, creating what analysts call a “volume kill zone,” a deliberate tactic to drown out reasoned voices with overwhelming noise.
More troubling than the tactics is the deliberate shift in messaging. What began as a pricing question quickly mutated into a character attack, suggesting Kuma Academy was a scam, or worse, a covert player in China’s influence operations. Meanwhile, the actual merit of the disaster supply kit — its functionality, accessibility or role in preparedness — was barely discussed.
This campaign fits the textbook definition of gray zone warfare; a strategy that avoids direct conflict, but seeks to erode societal cohesion through manipulation of public sentiment, ambiguity and distortion. This is warfare without bombs or soldiers, only algorithms, outrage and misinformation. The goal is to discredit and dismantle from within, until the target collapses.
In this case, the target is not just Kuma Academy. It is Taiwan’s broader civil preparedness movement.
Why would a civil defense group attract such attacks? Because efforts to prepare for conflict threaten those who profit from complacency. It undermines the comforting illusion that “both sides of the Taiwan Strait are one family,” a convenient fiction promoted by certain political factions. When citizens take self-defense seriously, it shrinks the space for denial, disinformation and false promises of peace through submission.
This is more than a smear campaign. It is a litmus test for Taiwan’s democratic maturity. Can society still distinguish good-faith public initiatives from politically engineered outrage? Can it preserve room for rational policy debate in an information environment dominated by viral clips and clickbait headlines?
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS