If the Taiwanese government ministries were putting out information _of a misleading or slanted nature_ in their official capacity, the press and public would rightly call them out on it.
Beside, if the press and public could and would call out government propaganda (which according to the minister is pretty much indistinguishable from disinformation) why would they need the government to pre-empt and counter it if it's easy to spot?
The free press still exists and can fact check away. And, since Taiwan is democratic, if a minister takes the piss, the press can report on it, and the public can elect someone else.
In that more autocratic era, the people who called out the government would have been arrested and imprisoned. That has now changed and that the public and press are now more freely allowed to challenge what is being said by their government.
The article suggests that today's government, under the careful supervision of the opposition parties and the independent press (both of which now exist), has resources that allow it to detect propaganda, and preemptively respond to it, in a way that individuals cannot.
Conservativism trumps historical rivalries.
This is currently happening with the White House. Nobody has enough of a spine to be sufficiently critical of the firehose of garbage that it broadcasts, because their press correspondent credentials will be revoked.
Disinformation comes from all sides and one has to be critical of everything.
Often there isn't even one truth.
And of course when you have two competing versions there is no guarantee that one is true, or that one is not true for that matter.
I'm just saying to people should use caution and not take anything at face value.
Note I saw saying "if there are two narratives". The "fake news" situation is often just one narrative. (US cable news has no narrative. Or brain.)
The government shouldn't assume it's correct. But if there is a wide variety of narratives it should be less difficult for the populace.