Many areas of Taiwanese society and politics are in need of attention. In the two years since President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) took office, his administration’s performance in many fields — be it in political, judicial or educational reform, economic regeneration, environmental conservation, or responding to natural disasters — has been singularly unimpressive. However, one thing this administration is very keen on is criticizing and restricting the media, whose role it is to monitor the government.
The Ma administration tried to limit the media using legislation such as the Computer-Processed Personal Data Protection Act (個人資料保護法) and the Children and Youth Welfare Act (兒童及少年福利法), which were reviewed over the past few days and are to be revised to offer better protection of children. Indeed, the administration made such blatant attempts at “embedded marketing” that the National Press Council (NPC) felt compelled to ask the government to refrain from such practices. Even the US-based non-profit watchdog Freedom House says that Taiwan’s government is guilty of interfering with both the Central News Agency and the Public Television Service.
A Taiwanese company with large investments in China bought out a major Chinese-language newspaper in Taiwan, calling the independence of its editorial policy into question. These factors have caused Taiwan’s press freedom ranking, as assessed by Freedom House, to decline for the past two years running. In other words, the government has a bad case of what the eminent US political scientist Samuel Huntington referred to as “authoritarian nostalgia.”
The government seems to go along with the notion of -“democracy with Chinese characteristics,” as promoted by the Chinese government, which believes that democracy is a Western concept and cannot be adopted wholesale. All this means is that freedom of the press and freedom of speech in Taiwan are now threatened more than at any time since the Martial Law era ended.
The press in Taiwan is being asked to curtail its reporting: To clean it up, take a cautious approach, correct it, make constructive suggestions and be more positive in its handling of issues. This is no different from how things were back in my day as editor of the official Taiwan Shin Sheng Daily News. However, times are different now, we have moved on. Why are leaders and officials in the 21st century still taking such an authoritarian stance? It really is quite outrageous.
I remember when I was working for the United Daily News. Back then, we competed with the Credit News, precursor to the China Times, in our coverage of social news stories, which could at times be quite sensationalistic.
The presidents at the time, Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and his son and successor Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), also wanted to clean up the media. They never intervened through legal channels, using legislation such as the two laws mentioned above. At best they chose to exploit the party political machine, using civic media groups such as the NPC or the National Press Institute to request “self-regulation.”
If the authorities felt there was an element of bias or prejudice in a media report or opinion piece, they would hold a “seminar” or “conference.” Nowadays, the government uses legal means to restrict the press, as if a more “civilized” system has moral standards that lend it legitimacy or acting in a seemingly reasonable way cannot possibly be considered restricting or clamping down on press freedoms, when there is no difference between the two.
The point is that things happen. News is by its very nature unpredictable, there is no way to classify it. If it were any different, it would not be news.
The main reason for the public’s negative perception of news media these days is the way news reports are written, processed and presented. This is what reporters learn in their media courses at school, or on the job. It is a matter of professional technique, rather than something that needs to be guided and corrected by law. If reporters and editors are continuously scrutinized and held to account at every turn, they will become intimidated and their journalism suppressed. That is a route we should not go down.
Media organizations worldwide practice self-regulation and are also constrained by innumerable laws and regulations. In most cases, the authorities guide the media and persuade them to abide by the rules. Upholding fairness and justice and protecting children, teenagers and the disadvantaged goes without saying. In other words, the key point is to find a suitable way to ensure both the media’s right to report and the public’s right to know. If laws were used to regulate how news was reported — whether it involves crime, violence, bloodshed, sexual or obscene content, either visual or textual — it would make the media’s job impossible, especially given the pressure of deadlines.
That would be an absurd situation — especially if the media ended up reporting nothing for fear of falling afoul of the law. Perhaps it would be a good idea to invite media organizations to present their opinions about this at a public hearing or seminar.
Government authorities need to get away from a mentality that believes the media has to be regulated and be more democratic about it. News reports should not be full of what media studies calls “selective perception” that excludes dissenting opinion. Besides, Taiwan has no lack of laws regulating the media as it is, in addition to social pressures. The real task should be to ensure greater freedom of news reporting.
If more legislation is used to restrict the media, or civic groups are used as a mechanism to scrutinize and debate media reports, that would not comply at all with democratic practice. It would be better to have academia, civic groups, official departments and media experts get together to work out ways for news media to regulate themselves. It could be something like the system of media ombudsmen that exists in advanced countries. What we can’t have is officialdom stifling the media for fear of something occasionally going awry. That would badly damage Taiwan’s democracy, as well as our image as a country that enjoys freedom of the press.
Lu I-ming is the former publisher and president of Taiwan Shin Sheng Daily News.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER AND JULIAN CLEGG
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past