The murder of a broker for foreign teachers in Kaohsiung last week has once again brought the serious flaws that exist in the conduct of the nation's police force -- not to mention the media -- to the fore.
Each morning since the story first broke the Chinese-language media, both print and broadcast, have been filled with incredibly detailed descriptions of every aspect of the case. In some instances the newspapers revealed so much it was difficult to know whether reporters or prosecutors are conducting the investigation.
Either media organizations have very resourceful reporters or someone in the police department is leaking important information about the case to the press. For example, how could the Apple Daily obtain a picture taken during the autopsy from a surveillance camera inside the mortuary?
To call both institutions unprofessional would be an understatement.
But the worst thing is the tendency of the media to jump to conclusions in the race for exclusive reportage. If three different people had read newspapers on three different days this week, each would have believed there was a different killer. Anyone who read Monday's papers would think a Japanese woman was guilty; on Tuesday, an American man was the main suspect; but read the papers on Wednesday and a Filipina is the guilty one.
Reporting facts that could influence the outcome of a trial is illegal in many countries and should be made so here. In some ways it is a blessing that Taiwan does not have trial by jury, as in many cases the perpetrators of crimes would have no chance whatsoever of receiving a fair trial.
Another thing the case has highlighted is the media's institutionalized xenophobia. No sooner had we learned that an American was a suspect than certain newspapers began reprinting chronologies of cases where Americans have killed Taiwanese.
Then, when American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) officials showed up to provide support and advice to the man during questioning, the media went into overdrive and accused them of interference. Even the Kaohsiung police spokesman felt inclined to announce that police would not let anyone (meaning AIT officials) meddle with their investigation.
The American was later released as there was insufficient evidence linking him to the crime. But following his release, newspapers were filled with provocative headlines like "Did AIT pressure the police?" while cable news channels were running disbelieving TV captions such as "Could a small, thin Filipina really be the lone killer?"
All this occurred without a shred of credible evidence being presented. It is this kind of irresponsible journalism, coupled with a complete lack of regulation on what can and cannot be reported by media outlets during such sensitive criminal investigations, that gives the nation's media such a bad reputation.
Sensationalized reporting can lead people -- such as a victim's relatives -- to jump to the wrong conclusion, often with tragic consequences, while the publication of gory details can lead politicians to jump on the bandwagon, family members to become forensic experts and a suspect to be found guilty in the eyes of the public before an indictment has been made.
Unfortunately, the presumption of innocence is a legal right that gets short shrift in Taiwan.
People here often complain about society, saying it is stuck in a downward spiral. But until something is done at the highest levels to force police to start protecting the rights of suspects, and until the press stops behaving like a pack of wild animals fighting over scraps of meat, civil society and the rule of law can only suffer.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs