Much debate last week centered on whether the prosecutors' search of Next magazine's offices constituted repression of press freedom and whether the magazine's reporters actually leaked state secrets, rather than just explored the political significance of the alleged embezzlement by former National Secu-rity Bureau (NSB) chief cashier Liu Kuan-chun (
The NSB's use of intelligence funds is a problem left over from the long period of KMT rule. National security agencies argue that intelligence activities need to be carried out in secret, using a direct chain of command. But this kind of system apparently provided Liu with the opportunity to embezzle funds.
Taiwan lacks an effective mechanism for monitoring intelligence agencies. A small num-ber of high-level officials can decide whom they want to fund and how they will do it. This cloud of secrecy and the lack of supervision have obscured plans by officials to enrich themselves.
The exposure of the Liu affair highlights the urgent need to establish a mechanism for monitoring the activities of the intelligence agencies.
The Control Yuan has established a task force to investigate the issue and the party caucuses in the Legislative Yuan have reached a consensus on formalizing the national security sys-tem. The legislature will probably eventually pass a law on supervising intelligence activities and perhaps establish an oversight committee.
However, Next, in trying to protect the people's right to know, went too far in its story. It was inevitable that the NSB, citing concerns about protecting its intelligence-gathering appa-ratus, would claim that the magazine was in possession of documents concerning national security and that it might release to the public.
Liu's motives for reportedly giving secret documents to the media are certainly open to question. Either he did it to take revenge or to create more political infighting. If the materials really did come from Liu, then regardless of how many media organizations have them or who obtained them first -- the decision of whether they are classified should still be made by national security agencies.
Looking at the issue from the experience of Western nations, legislative monitoring of national security matters has its limits. Legislative intelligence committees in Europe and the US therefore place more importance on the honesty of intelligence officials. Systematization is a preventive measure against intelligence being turned into a tool for political infighting. So, as long as national security agencies conduct their business in the interests of the nation, the legislature will respect their expertise.
In recent years, examples of media abuses of press freedom have been common. We've rarely seen the media exercise self-discipline. It has to show particular restraint when it comes to reporting the vulgar habits of politicians in Taiwan defaming, smearing and frivolously accusing each other. Taiwan is rapidly moving towards a full-fledged democracy and the public finds it difficult to tolerate the use of national security to benefit a small group of people.
The lesson highlighted by the Next incident must be that the legislature needs to set up a mechanism for reviewing the budgets of national security agencies as soon as possible. At the same time, it should create clear legislation that blocks the media from possible violations of national security matters.
Wu Tung-yeh is a research fellow at the Institute for International Relations at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under