China Accused of Using Filipino Children in Anti-Japan Propaganda Campaign, Report Says

In a concerning development for Philippine education, what appeared to be a benign essay contest for public school students has been revealed as part of a coordinated information campaign linked to Beijing’s United Front Work Department.

The initiative began when the Philippine Department of Education’s National Capital Region office distributed Regional Letter No. 107, s. 2025, inviting students to participate in an essay competition commemorating the 80th anniversary of the allied victory over Imperial Japan. Arriving on official department letterhead, the contest seemed like a legitimate educational opportunity.

However, analysis reveals this was actually the first step in recruiting Filipino schoolchildren into a global information campaign designed to highlight historical Japanese wartime atrocities and connect them to Japan’s current democratic government. This narrative contradicts contemporary Filipino sentiment, as polling shows Japan ranks among the Philippines’ most trusted partners in defending interests in the West Philippine Sea.

The contest was introduced to education officials by James Wang (also known as Huang Duanming), president of the Philippine Chinese Education Research Center (PCERC). Wang framed the initiative as a way for students to “remember history, cherish peace, and uphold the spirit of solidarity” between the Philippines and China in their shared World War II experiences.

To drive participation, organizers created a multilevel incentive structure. Student winners could receive up to 30,000 Philippine pesos (approximately $520), while teacher-advisers stood to earn up to 15,000 pesos. Schools with high participation rates were promised additional rewards—powerful motivators in an under-resourced public education system.

What education officials apparently missed was the essay competition’s co-sponsor: the Philippine Council for the Promotion of the Peaceful Reunification of China (PCPPRC), a well-documented United Front arm whose primary purpose is advancing Beijing’s claim that Taiwan must be absorbed into mainland China.

According to its own materials, the PCERC maintains close ties with China’s party-state, collaborating with “the Chinese Ministry of Education, Ministry of Culture, United Front Work Department, Overseas Chinese Affairs Office, Language Cooperation Center, and primary, secondary, and tertiary schools.” The PCERC also operates a “talent infusion program” that has brought nearly 5,000 mainland Chinese teachers to the Philippines over three decades.

The essay requirements were carefully crafted to align with Beijing’s international narrative framework—commemorating what China calls the “World Anti-Fascist War and the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression.” This language closely mirrors the template Beijing deployed for its own 80th anniversary program, positioning the Chinese Communist Party as a heroic liberator, Japan as a dangerous aggressor, and Taiwan as unfinished business from World War II.

The political nature of the initiative became undeniable on October 19, when the PCPPRC organized a series of events at Manila’s Century Park Hotel. These included an assembly commemorating “Taiwan’s Retrocession,” the Eighth China Peaceful Reunification Asia Forum, and the PCPPRC’s officers’ induction ceremony. PRC Chargé d’Affaires Zhou Zhiyong was present to administer oaths and emphasize that the one-China principle represents a “red line.”

During this explicitly political gathering, the student essay winners were brought on stage to receive their awards, with Chinatown TV News cameras recording the ceremony for social media distribution. What had begun as an ostensibly educational activity culminated on the stage of a United Front rally focused on Taiwan—Filipino minors receiving prizes amid someone else’s political campaign.

This was not an isolated incident. Documentation shows the PCERC ran a similar essay competition for the 70th anniversary in 2015, producing student work under the title “Remembering the History, Creating the Future”—language identical to the CCP’s official messaging for war remembrance events.

The incident raises serious questions about foreign influence in Philippine institutions. While Filipino-Chinese communities have every right to commemorate historical events or discuss cross-strait relations, the concern arises when a foreign government uses these communities as vessels for political campaigns while concealing their purposes behind civic activities.

Some experts suggest the Philippines should consider implementing a transparency regime similar to Australia’s Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme, which preserves free speech but requires anyone conducting public influence activities on behalf of a foreign government to register and disclose that relationship.

Had such requirements existed, the Department of Education would have understood what it was distributing, and parents and teachers would have known their children’s work would feature in a state-sponsored propaganda campaign.

The targeting of public school children represents a particularly sensitive frontier in foreign influence operations. As the Philippines determines its response to such activities, it joins other democracies grappling with similar challenges to their sovereignty and institutional integrity.