In its second reading of the amendment to the Personal Data Protection Act (個人資料保護法), the legislature passed the new, expanded version covering medical care, genetics, sex, health checks, criminal records, contact information and financial situation, as well as social activities and other personal data.
In addition, media and elected officials publishing personal information must obtain the approval of the party concerned before doing so. Even if it is necessary and in the public interest, one cannot identify the individual concerned.
Violators face criminal charges or an administrative fine, and compensation in a civil court case may reach NT$200 million (US$6.4 million).
Maybe legislators added this text because they are tired of sensational gossip, or was it because they want to prevent other elected representatives, media outlets or pundits from exposing irregularities?
They seem to care little that there are no examples of such legislation in other countries, or that such a law will place severe restrictions on the media.
According to Article 2 of the amended law, no information about individual activities, including “social activities,” may be “collected” or “obtained” by anyone, including media outlets, without the prior consent of the party concerned, even if the activity takes place in public.
Treating all individual information as secret ignores the fact that the right to privacy is not unlimited and is not an absolute right. When individual and public rights clash, there must be legal room to balance the different interests, rather than always placing individual rights and interests above all else.
According to the amendment, media reports or footage taken without the consent of the concerned party could result in a lawsuit and a prison sentence or an astronomical fine.
Media reporting will be significantly restricted and the media will no longer be able to protect the public’s interests or fulfill the role of the fourth estate.
Individual information as defined by this amendment does not differentiate between private and public individuals, public and private affairs or public and private activities. Public institutions alone will be allowed to collect and expose individual information without the approval of the individual concerned.
Under Article 6, public institutions can use gathered individual information to protect national security or promote the public interest.
This flawed law gives officials a free hand to do whatever they want, while the public must remain quiet.
Even more serious, the individual social activities protected by this amendment include the activities of government officials. In other words, if a reporter interviews an official but does not obtain explicit approval, the official cannot be named. If the official is unhappy with the report, they can then sue the reporter and demand compensation.
The media have to surrender unconditionally, give up their supervisory role and become government mouthpieces, while the government can do anything it wants without fear of media criticism.
This flawed and unconstitutional piece of legislation will destroy Taiwan’s hard-earned freedoms of expression and the press overnight, effectively demolishing a cornerstone of Taiwan’s democracy and freedom.
Until the amendment has passed a third legislative reading, there is no damage done and there is still time to change the amendment.
The legislature must listen to public opinion and immediately suspend the current amendment and instead wait for the Cabinet to submit a new version during the next legislative session.
If the legislature proceeds with a third reading of the current version, our last hope is that a constitutional interpretation by the Council of Grand Justices will protect freedom of expression in Taiwan.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS