Strange as it may seem, Chu Mei-feng (
A hidden camera captured Chu and her married lover in a very private act. Scoop Weekly obtained the steamy footage and bundled VCDs with its cover-story issue on Chu. The wanna-be legislator quickly became a household name in Taiwan and abroad, thanks to the Internet. When prosecutors searched Scoop Weekly's offices and confiscated copies of the controversial issue, the magazine protested that the government was suppressing press freedom.
Details about Taiwan's national security maneuvers over the past decade received a similar airing before the people of Taiwan and the international community, after someone in the National Security Bureau apparently leaked classified documents about the bureau's secret accounts. When prosecutors searched Next magazine's offices and printing plant, confiscating copies of the issue carrying articles about those accounts, the magazine also claimed that press freedom was being impinged.
Both incidents triggered huge debates over balancing press freedom and the right to privacy and national security concerns. But the debates cannot be boiled down to a question of whether the right to privacy or national security is more important than press freedom. The question should be what are the choices for reporters, editors and the government when these two values collide.
In Chu's case, her affair with a married man may have offended many people's sense of decency, but that does not negate the fact that she was a victim of the worst kind of voyeurism. Scoop Weekly and those who posted footage of her on the Internet abused her right to privacy in her own home.
The media's release of classified documents detailing diplomatic channels and maneuvers between Taiwan, Japan and the US during the 1996 missile crisis has effectively cut off all those channels and exposed intelligence officers to personal danger. Publishing reports critical of a government's actions are one thing. Publishing details that could cost lives is another.
How to deal with freedom of information issues and privacy issues is something that every democracy has to deal with. Every government would like to keep its missteps from public view, just as it is a rare person who is always willing to proclaim "I goofed." But not every government secret is a matter of national security. Finding the right balance is not an easy task, for either a government or the media.
Look at the debate in the US when the New York Times and Washington Post published the Pentagon Papers. The public good was served when the US government failed in its effort to suppress the papers' publication. Reporting on public policy issues or scandals, however, is one thing, naming undercover operatives is another. Responsible media are willing to not to disclose names or details that might harm national security. The cut-throat competition to break a story cannot be used as an excuse for shoddy reporting or editing.
The KMT used the Taiwan Garrison Command (
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with