Compared with their colleagues in many other countries, the Taiwanese media stand out as aggressive purveyors of gossip.
The remedy to such a culture, however, is not the updated Personal Data Protection Act (個人資料保護法). That law represents a setback for democracy.
It is highly regrettable that both the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) support the act, which contains such vague phrases as acting in the “public interest” and the use of “generally accessible data.” This leaves far too much room for interpretation and history is full of examples of how such ill-defined language can be used to undermine democracy and free speech. China is probably suitably inspired.
That politicians have asked academics to define “public interest” and “generally accessible data” helps in no way. Such definitions are unlikely to be any more farsighted than the academics providing them. There is also no guarantee that academics will be able to agree any more than politicians on a single definition. Ultimately, it will fall to the courts to decide.
Tragically, the act’s passage through the legislature was met by inept politicians sleeping on the job. A previous draft was watered down to such an extent that the media are now exempt from a requirement to inform and obtain consent from individuals before publishing their personal data, even when gathered through public and social activities.
The media are now allowed to search and collect “generally accessible data” about individuals when acting in the “public interest.” The uncertainty surrounding these terms also has implications for bloggers, non-governmental associations and individuals.
Publicly obtainable personal data may now be used, unless the person concerned has an overriding interest that enjoys higher protection than the freedom of expression. In such cases individuals can demand that related data are not published, leaving room for yet further interpretation.
In Germany, a clear distinction is made between safeguarding the data of ordinary citizens and “individuals of public interest.” People who are well known to the general public through the media must accept that they will be reported on extensively, including information regarding their private lives. Such individuals for the most part enjoy the spotlight. The general public has a right to be kept informed about their lives, with the proviso that reporting does not become harassment, as was the case with former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) daughter, who was followed every day for months in Taiwan and overseas. In the interest of maintaining a free press, such limits need to be defined very broadly.
Regulations preventing personal data from being “combined” might increase the protection afforded individuals by ensuring personal profiles do not end up in private databases. However, such information can still be used in the media, making this a highly dubious clause.
The lawmakers were probably well intentioned, but the solution they have come up with is worse than the original problem. Those who believe they have been harassed or slandered already have legal recourse available to them, without this act.
Instead, a broader approach needs to be taken, beginning with the promotion of better journalism by a more professional media. This could include such things as a code of conduct, quality standards, the professional education of would-be journalists through internships and independent schools of journalism.
A similar law enacted in Europe or elsewhere in the Western world would have been met with outrage. Unfortunately, in Taiwan it is just one more piece of evidence that democracy is in retreat.
Michael Danielsen is the chairman of Taiwan Corner. Gunter Whittome is a writer living in Taipei.
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
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
RSS