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.
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
Despite calls to the contrary from their respective powerful neighbors, Taiwan and Somaliland continue to expand their relationship, endowing it with important new prospects. Fitting into this bigger picture is the historic Coast Guard Cooperation Agreement signed last month. The common goal is to move the already strong bilateral relationship toward operational cooperation, with significant and tangible mutual benefits to be observed. Essentially, the new agreement commits the parties to a course of conduct that is expressed in three fundamental activities: cooperation, intelligence sharing and technology transfer. This reflects the desire — shared by both nations — to achieve strategic results within
It is difficult not to agree with a few points stated by Christian Whiton in his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” and yet the main idea is flawed. I am a Polish journalist who considers Taiwan her second home. I am conservative, and I might disagree with some social changes being promoted in Taiwan right now, especially the push for progressiveness backed by leftists from the West — we need to clean up our mess before blaming the Taiwanese. However, I would never think that those issues should dominate the West’s judgement of Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. The question is not whether
RSS