Chinese Embassy Manila

Chinese Embassy Manila's Post

Chinese Embassy Manila

Remarks of the Deputy Spokesperson of the Chinese Embassy Guo Wei on Baseless Accusations by Jay Tarriela and the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

Q: The Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) issued a statement explaining that it receives funding from multiple sources, and accusing the Chinese Embassy of “attacking independent reporting by Filipinos”. Jay Tarriela also amplified the statement and accused China of conducting information manipulation. What is the comment from the embassy?

A: It is hardly surprising that Jay Tarriela, well known for his anti-China zeal, eagerly amplified PCIJ’s slanted reporting and then rushed to defend its supposed “innocence.” As the saying goes, birds of a feather flock together. This pattern clearly points to the coordinated nature of anti-China rhetoric in the Philippines.

First, it is regrettable that PCIJ continues to brand itself as a practitioner of “independent reporting.” Its sustained coverage of China is characterized by one-sided accusations and deliberate smears. Meanwhile, it dismisses those offering objective perspectives on China as being “shaped” or “contracted” by China.

The logic appears simple: viewpoints aligned with PCIJ are labeled “independent,” while dissenting perspectives are deemed unacceptable. Such blatant double standards erode its credibility and expose the fragility of its claims to independence.

Second, PCIJ’s statement conspicuously avoided addressing a basic question: whether it has long received funding from the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

Let us be clear: the NED does not distribute funds without purpose. It supports selected groups to advance political agendas abroad under the banner of “democracy promotion.” In China, it has been reported to have engaged with opposition groups in Hong Kong, including the “Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor” and the “Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions,” and to have provided grants to organizations such as the “World Uyghur Congress” and the Uyghur American Association. Its activities have frequently been associated with political agitation and interference in the internal affairs of other countries.

Against this backdrop, the questions for PCIJ are straightforward: Has it received funding from the NED? If so, how has that funding been used? If it truly upholds “independent reporting,” why not be fully transparent about its financial sources?

Third, PCIJ’s dismissive and evasive response to criticism raises further concerns. The rapid circulation of posts from the Chinese Embassy was hastily labeled by PCIJ as evidence of a “coordinated online attack.” Such a conclusion, offered without clear evidence, appears speculative and falls short of the rigor expected of a journalistic institution. Is it not equally plausible that public reaction was triggered by the exposure of PCIJ’s biased or misleading reporting?

Finally, allegations that China engages in so-called “information manipulation” are baseless fabrications that invert reality. For years, China’s position in the Philippines has been misrepresented and distorted. It is therefore the responsibility of the Embassy to continue presenting facts and clarifying misunderstandings, no matter how inconvenient that may be to some people here in the Philippines.

Further reading about the NED:

The National Endowment for Democracy: What It Is and What It Does https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/.../202408/t20240809_11468618.html

Fact Sheet on the National Endowment for Democracy https://www.mfa.gov.cn/.../202205/t20220507_10683090.html

All reactions:

177 comments

58 shares

Comment

Most relevant

Dorian Gray

The P in PCIJ actually stands for propaganda

View all 8 replies

Gra Cey

If you fight for the rights of your country. For the Chinese and DDS you are anti-China.

Do you want the Filipinos to just agree? So you can't say we are anti-China.

If the US is helping to spread information Nationwide. Then it's good and everyone knows what's happening in the country and at sea.

right?

View all 14 replies

Rhiver Jayson

On point. Pag pabor sa kanila independent, pero pag di pabor sa kanila. Pro-china agad. Show proof nga na nagbibigay ang chinese government sa sino mang vlogger or personality na hindi align sa PCIJ?

View all 2 replies

Hachi Aomori

It takes someone with comprehension skills to understand the Chinese Embassy Manila’s post. It's not rocket science to identify who lacks these skills based on their comments.

Top fan

Veele Arevalo

If a firm is US funded definitely it will do everything for the interest of the US.US is not giving aid without benefits in return.

John Lloyd

You know what I see?

When the philippines says "one of the roof has fallen off"

China would say, the roof is there to give us shelter, but there is a small crack where rain drops.

Philippines will say, parts of the roof needs to be replaced because it has fallen off.

China will say, no need to replace entire roof because of a tiny leak

Now the topic goes to the leak.

Philippines say, the leak has been there for long time, but the roof that has fallen needs to be replaced

China would say, do not insist of replacement just for the leak.

Phils will say, if you replace the roof, the leak will subsequently stop.

China would say, Philippines wants to change the whole roof just because of a small leak

Philippines would say, part of the roof has fallen, it is not just a leak.

Then US will say, alright chilll, I called a carpenter to check on the roof

Japan would say, we can lend extra nails and hammer to the caroenter.

China would say. No, do not interfere. You used hammers to drive off the nails all over the neighborhood. Do not hammer anywhere you pleae

Japan would say, I have given up carpentry, and am now a farmer. The hammer and nails were just hidden under the cupboard

China would say, Japan is looking to use his hammer again, he will destroy all the houses.

Taiwan says, I have a roofing sealant that can come handy

China sys, we own those and just keep then in safe place. We will gwt them when we need then

Taiwan says, I baught those roofing sealant from japan and i hid them in the shack because you do not like then inside the house.

US says, alright, the carpenter than use the sealant and the nails from japan. Carpenter has his own hammer.

Australia says, I have a handsaw, it is good for cutting

China says, why do you want to cut, it is just a small leak?

Philippines says, part of the roof is literally on the ground.

US says, the carpenter take care of that.

Taiwan says, yeah with the use of the roofing sealant

Japan says, and some nails

China says, Taiwan i want my sealant, japan do not start pounding houses with ur hammer, and australia, nobody wants to cut anything!

.... it is just a small analogy, but i think that is what is.going on..

View 1 reply

Ruter Agati

The implication that the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism was “paid to create” or fabricate reports is a serious insinuation. Such an implication carries weight and therefore requires evidence — not suggestion by association.

To imply or insinuate that PCIJ was paid to manufacture these reports would necessarily mean suggesting that:

• The documented maritime incidents did not occur;

• Video footage and photographic evidence were fabricated;

• Official diplomatic protests placed on record are fictitious;

• Independent international outlets such as Reuters, Agence France-Presse, and Al Jazeera were either misled or complicit in repeating false events;

• The 2016 arbitral award issued by the Permanent Court of Arbitration under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is somehow part of the same fabrication.

That is an extraordinarily broad suggestion.

Grant funding, in itself, does not establish fabrication. To insinuate that it does is to substitute suspicion for proof. If the facts reported are independently corroborated — and in this case they are — then questioning funding does not invalidate the underlying events.

An insinuation without evidence remains an insinuation. The focus should remain on whether the documented incidents and legal rulings are accurate — not on speculative narratives about who funded whom.

View all 4 replies

Manny Nutt

Great reply! It's no secret NED funds American disinformation and propaganda campaign throughout the world.

Doreen Jandusay

Majority of the Filipinos don't want war, we apologise for the stupidity and imbicileness of most of the government officers of our country.

Paolo Romero

Take back your Shoal Filipinos!