Opinion Piece: What Is the Truth? Biased Narratives Are Destroying Public Perception

Two Taiwanese police officers, one currently serving and one retired, traveled to Quanzhou, Fujian Province, on mainland China, and shortly after checking into a guesthouse, were taken away by six or seven Chinese state security agents to a third location, where they were detained and interrogated for approximately six hours. This should have been treated as a serious personal safety incident requiring thorough investigation, but it quickly escalated into a battle of public perception.

On one side, media outlets cited anonymous grassroots police officers speculating that the individuals may have engaged in 'abnormal behavior' at the hotel, prompting the investigation. On the other, Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) strongly rejected the claim, accusing it of defaming the individuals and even aiding China's cognitive warfare operations.

Yet the most critical questions remain unanswered: What exactly did the two officers experience? Why were they taken? What were they asked during the six hours? Is there any evidence for the alleged 'abnormal behavior'?

What the public currently sees are selective narratives from various parties, not a complete picture of the facts.

The China Times must not use anonymous speculation to convict individuals. In a free society, the media's role in questioning the government is essential, but it must not harm individuals with unverified claims. The term 'abnormal behavior' lacks specific details or evidence, yet it fuels negative assumptions and damages reputations.

Anonymous sources are not a shield from responsibility. If claims cannot be verified, media should clearly label them as unconfirmed speculation, not imply wrongdoing through vague language. Otherwise, the individuals suffer a double injustice—first detained in China, then publicly scrutinized in Taiwan. The media's duty is to verify and clarify, not amplify unproven suspicions.

The MAC's version is an official account, not the full truth. The council provided more detailed information, stating the two were taken by state security agents and questioned about critical infrastructure. If true, this suggests China may be targeting individuals with specific backgrounds for intelligence gathering.

However, these claims rely solely on the individuals' accounts after returning to Taiwan—still a single source. The government has not released full interrogation records or other verifiable evidence, nor has it disclosed the complete content of the six-hour questioning.

The officials' statement that the agents 'mainly asked' about critical infrastructure does not mean that was the only topic. If the MAC selectively presents information that supports its policy stance, it cannot claim to reveal the full truth.

When the government labels critics as collaborators in cognitive warfare, it risks narrowing rational discourse, shifting the debate from 'is the evidence sufficient?' to 'is your stance correct?'

'Stop going unless necessary' is not a comprehensive policy. After the incident, the government advised people not to travel to mainland China 'unless necessary.' But this sounds more like a slogan than a policy. What counts as 'unnecessary'? Does it include tourism, family visits, or academic exchanges? Which individuals are at high risk? If risks are real, the government should establish clear regulations and response mechanisms, including risk classification, reporting procedures, and emergency assistance—rather than shifting all responsibility onto individuals through vague warnings.

Otherwise, the burden of risk falls entirely on citizens.

What we are receiving are positions, not facts. Media and government are presenting conflicting narratives: one downplaying the incident's severity, the other emphasizing national security threats. Both may contain partial truths, but neither offers a complete picture.

Citizens should not be forced to choose between two narratives. They should demand fuller facts. It is possible to criticize media for unverified speculation while also demanding more evidence and transparency from the government.

The core of a democratic society is not choosing who to believe, but refusing to let positions replace evidence.

Return the raw facts to the people. To clarify the incident, the responsible authorities should disclose key details: How was the identity of the state security agents confirmed? What was the process and content of the interrogation? Were their phones inspected? Were other topics discussed? Why were they released? Has the government conducted diplomatic protests or negotiations?

Regarding the 'abnormal behavior' claim, if there is no evidence, the media should issue corrections or clarifications. If other circumstances exist, they should be reported truthfully without harming the individuals.

Press freedom does not include the right to arbitrarily defame others, and national security cannot justify selective information disclosure.

When both media and government possess more information, they bear a greater responsibility to explain. The public does not need to be told who to believe—they need to understand the full facts.

Don’t rush to tell us who to trust. First, just tell us what happened.

*The author is a media professional.