The transparency imperative: Defending Philippine democracy vs foreign interference

Filipinos have recently confronted uncomfortable evidence of coordinated foreign interference in their country’s affairs.

There are reports that Manila-based civic groups and Mandarin-language media outlets are being led by people with direct ties to the Chinese Communist Party’s United Front Work Department, and have received direct instructions from the Chinese Embassy and visiting Chinese Communist Party delegations.

The question now facing the Philippine government and citizens is not whether foreign interference in its democracy is occurring, but how its democracy should respond.

These Chinese government activities deliberately blur the line between legitimate diplomatic and cultural engagement and state-directed political meddling.

Chinese state officials have been documented praising overseas Chinese leaders for “upholding the banner of opposing [Taiwan] independence” and exhorting them to “carry out anti-independence and promotion of reunification activities.”

When evidence of these activities appeared on social media, at least one media outlet deleted its own content—raising an obvious question: if these are legitimate cultural activities, why scrub the internet of the evidence?

This represents a particular concern for Philippine sovereignty precisely. This is an antagonistic foreign power exploiting the Philippines’ multiethnic open society and targeting its people through cultural and community channels. It is sophisticated political warfare aimed at reshaping how Filipinos understand their national interests.

Transparency over prohibition

The answer to this challenge is not to ban organizations or restrict free speech. Filipino-Chinese citizens have every right to take pride in their heritage, maintain cultural traditions and advocate for whatever political positions they genuinely believe in. Democracies don’t win by adopting authoritarian methods.

Rather, the answer lies in greater transparency. Filipinos deserve to know when organizations purporting to represent their communities are receiving direct instruction or funding from a foreign government. They deserve to know when media outlets are serving as propaganda channels for a foreign state. 

Australia’s experience: insights from Down Under

One democratic partner has already experimented with this approach. We saw it first-hand, as US embassy officials assigned to Australia in 2018. After similar evidence of Chinese interference operations emerged there, Australia acted boldly to pass counter-interference legislation.

The law did not ban any organizations or restrict free speech, but instead leaned on transparency, so that organizations receiving funding or direction from foreign governments were now required to register with the Australian government and disclose their foreign connections under a Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme (FITS). 

The law was a major step forward, though far from perfect. It took more than four years before Australia compelled the first major organization to register under FITS. A parliamentary committee later found the scheme suffered from “limited effectiveness, low registration numbers and weak enforcement.”

All this is to say that we believe Australia’s experience can offer the Philippines invaluable lessons, both from its successes and its disappointments.

Charting the Philippine path

The first lesson is to seize the current momentum. Recent media coverage and documented evidence have created political will to address the problem. This opportunity to “strike while the iron is hot” should not be wasted.

Second, build strong implementation from the start. Australia’s experience proves that legislation without swift enforcement and follow-through becomes irrelevant. The Philippines should embed clear timelines and accountability mechanisms into any counter-interference framework from the beginning—not hope they materialize later.

Third, remember that transparency, not prohibition, is the goal. A transparency scheme does not ban foreign organizations; it requires disclosure of foreign funding and direction. Transparency can enhance the legitimacy of organizations with nothing to hide while exposing those engaged in deception. 

Respecting Philippine sovereignty, self-determination

The evidence of coordinated foreign interference operations is real, documented and increasingly visible. It is operating inside the Philippines at scale and with sophistication. The question is not whether the challenge exists. The question is how Filipinos will choose to meet it—whether through legislation, institutional reform, civil society efforts, public education or some combination thereof.

We write this as friends of the Philippines, fully respectful that designing counter-interference policy is ultimately for Filipinos alone to debate and decide and mindful that our own country faces similar challenges. What we offer is our informed perspective—one among many we hope you will consider at this crucial time.

An informed and engaged citizenry is a democracy’s best defense. Filipinos should debate these questions with full knowledge of the interference operations targeting their country—and with confidence that democratic paths forward exist that protect your nation’s security as well as its freedoms.

Ray Powell is a Non-Resident Fellow of the Stratbase Institute and the Executive Director of the SeaLight Foundation, and James Carouso is its Board Chair. Together they co-host the “Why Should We Care About the Indo-Pacific?” podcast. Ray is a retired U.S. Air Force officer. James is a retired U.S. diplomat.