As soon as the Government Information Office (GIO) revealed its plans to entrust a public interest organization with the observation and evaluation of print and electronic media, many of the larger newspapers went on the offensive. They opposed the plans so vehemently they even accused the GIO of reviving martial-law-era media controls.
In the end, President Chen Shui-bian (
The freedoms of expression and of the press (or the media) are important cornerstones of democratic and cultural development. The state cannot shirk its responsibility in protecting these freedoms. There are, however, limitations to the freedoms of expression and the press, just as there are limitations to other basic constitutional rights.
Interpretation No. 509 by the Council of Grand Justices clearly states that there is no law stating that restricting the methods of dissemination is an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of expression. For example, the protection of the physical and mental development of youth or the protection of privacy may, when necessary, be reasons to restrict news reporting. To bring order to the media and improve the chaotic market situation that has followed the democratization of Taiwan, both self- and external censorship should be applied, balancing the need to guarantee the freedom of the press and the requirement that the media live up to their public responsibilities.
Even though the state can legally regulate media and is free to choose how it does so, the shadow of White Terror and literary inquisition still looms large after 50 years of authoritarian rule. Moreover, the ideological divisions over independence and unification make investigations or research into the content of media reporting the likely target of fierce media opposition. Because this society lacks mutual trust, it would matter little whether the GIO undertakes these tasks itself or outsources them to public interest organizations.
From the authoritarian KMT era until the present, the GIO has always been a mouthpiece of the political leadership policing the media. The GIO's dark history of dealing with print media is endless. Having such an administrative institution monitoring the media is not only a matter of conflicting roles, but it also goes against the requirement for systemic protection of the freedom of the press in democratic countries.
Let's use post-World War II West Germany as an example. Following from the Nazi period, when the media was restricted to function as the government's propaganda tool, the Basic Law (the Constitution) provided clear guarantees for the freedoms of publication, broadcasting, film and information. These freedoms could only be restricted through legislation, and this led to a separation in principle between government and the media. When the individual states create press or broadcasting legislation (Germany is a federation where states deal with the regulation of the media), they all adhere to this principle, thus bringing order to the media.
The most pressing matter for the Cabinet is therefore the active initiation of a national communications commission. It should use this kind of independent insti-tution, which should include scholars and experts from a wide range of fields, to build a post-authoritarian media order based on the principle of "a bit more expertise and a bit less politicking."
Further, regarding media self-censorship, media professionals should follow the example of lawyers and accountants and establish a professional association organized and led by themselves, authorizing it to establish a certification system to improve the quality of its members. Moreover, any violation of professional media ethics or any legal violations should lead to the association taking disciplinary action according to ethical regulations formulated by the association itself. This would guarantee the freedom of the press and avoid the ugly image of government intervention in media affairs, as well as further media fulfillment of their public responsibilities.
The GIO could save its breath and stop initiating various publishing laws or so-called ethical regulations for the mass media. This would avoid the addition of any meaningless political disputes.
Mark Chen is a DPP legislator and Chen Yaw-shyang holds a doctorate in law from Heidelberg University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS