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.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS