The Ministry of the Interior recently announced that it wants to amend the Children and Youth Welfare Act (兒童及少年福利法) to place restrictions on how the press can report the details of cases involving minors. While few people would oppose an attempt to protect children and young people, this measure is problematic because it would involve restricting the constitutional right to a free press.
In its attempt to act for what can be seen as commendable reasons, the ministry has lost sight of the bigger picture.
The ministry wants to keep the grisly details of these crimes from our newspapers and TV screens based on the assumption that these reports put ideas into the minds of potential offenders, thus putting children at risk of being victims of copycat offenses or crimes inspired by the reports.
This is misguided, because it has not been empirically proven that any such relationship exists. Offenders do not act because of what they see on TV or read in newspapers. Restricting how these crimes are reported will not stop people from offending, nor will it help reduce the incidence of crimes against minors.
There is little doubt that considerable room exists to improve the way the Taiwanese press conducts itself and self-regulation could certainly be strengthened, but these changes grow organically from ongoing societal discourse and the prevailing political climate.
The central problem is that the government has made little if any effort to correct the failings of the press or encourage better behavior. Instead, it has jumped straight to seeking restrictions on press freedoms with this amendment. This action misses the point and comes close to abusing the government’s power to legislate.
Even if we take the government at its word and the amendment passes a third reading in the legislature, there is little reason to believe it will successfully curb sensationalist reports given the irredeemable tabloid nature of certain newspapers and programs, and their penchant for going into the grisly details of crimes.
News ethics, self-regulation, public distaste: These are mere ephemera to certain elements in the media that continue to behave as a law unto themselves.
The most likely outcome if this amendment becomes law is that reputable media outlets will find their hands tied, whereas gossipmongers and sensationalist media will hide behind teams of lawyers and legal loopholes, carrying on as usual. The result will be a vicious circle in which — to paraphrase Gresham’s Law — sensationalist nonsense drowns out genuine information. Not only will this amendment have failed to achieve its stated purpose, it will also inadvertently distort news reporting in this country.
Press freedom is a hard-won right. Only recently were clauses prohibiting political parties from advocating secessionism or communism removed from the Political Party Act (政黨法), eliminating one of the final legal constraints on freedom of expression. To go ahead with this amendment now would turn back the clock on freedom of speech in Taiwan.
In addition, despite the stated good intentions of the amendment, if this one exception to press freedom is accepted, then how long before another worthwhile case is found and yet more restraints are deemed necessary to protect some other group?
Freedom of expression is a human right, not a gift to be given, taken away or amended at the whim of a political party. It must be protected.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing