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.
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS