The press is one of the main pillars of modern society — and necessary for a healthy democracy. When, in the future, large numbers of visitors come over from China, they will be able to see how differently the media operate in Taiwan compared with the press in their own country. This comes with the caveat that the Taiwanese press is not without its issues: Mention of the media here is often met with shakes of the head accompanied by sighs, given its association with sensationalism and stirring up social discontent. Many people would say it’s a bit of a lost cause. However, one of the reasons that things have come to this is that the media’s actions are so often frustrated.
A recent incident serves as an excellent illustration of how serious the problem is. Three years ago, a reporter for a Chinese-language newspaper was doing a story on a certain celebrity and was following their movements with a camera, what is known as doing a tracking shot. The police fined him NT$1,500. He appealed to the Taipei District Court, but the fine was upheld on the grounds that the journalist had violated Article 89 of the Social Order Maintenance Act (社會秩序維護法) by following, without justification, another person, and not desisting in the pursuit when asked. There are perfectly good reasons for the existence of this regulation, but for it to be applied to reporters going about their business is, frankly, preposterous.
The reason the press is revered in the West as the fourth estate of government, or even as some kind of undecorated hero, is because of its independent status and its investigative prowess. In post-war Germany, for example, the press — Der Spiegel in particular — was responsible for exposing a number of political scandals. Its strength lies in the sheer tenacity of its journalists and the German media’s ability to pay confidential witnesses, facilitating the investigation of stories. The German press also had the right to silence and could refuse to divulge its sources, which is why informants were willing to provide insider information.
At times these considerable powers are challenged. A 2004 ruling by the European Court of Human Rights is one such example. The court ruled against a German gossip rag over the publication of photographs of Princess Caroline of Hanover and family members secretly taken at her home, on the grounds that this was a violation of her right to privacy.
Even though various German courts had previously found for the defendant, the European Court came to a different conclusion. It ruled that, although the dissemination of ideas needed to be protected, the photos in question were of an entirely personal nature: Their publication was in no way related to the public interest and was thus in violation of privacy rights guaranteed in the European Convention on Human Rights.
This ruling was met with a mixture of panic and -condemnation in the European media, with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung accusing the court of dealing a blow to the freedom of the press. Fortunately, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany delivered a ruling four years later reinforcing press freedoms, saying that journalists are still covered by the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany regardless of how mundane the photos they published of celebrities were.
By comparison, Taiwanese journalists enjoy very limited legal guarantees, and there are still occasional examples of reporters being struck down by the courts, such as former Powerful News online reporter Hung Che-cheng (洪哲政), who was found guilty of treason and sentenced to 18 months for revealing military secrets.
The consequences of this is that journalists are very cautious about what they publish. You can see this in the way legislators call press conferences to make revelations for which they have no evidence, or for which they have not checked the facts, with journalists simply reporting what was said.
The public has gotten used to this. You don’t have this kind of journalism in the West. Legislators are mandated to make laws, not revelations. That this happens in Taiwan reflects a certain dereliction of duty, and a timidity, on the part of the press. If the story turns out to be a dud, they can just blame the legislator who brought it up in the first place. The same goes for popular talk show hosts and the excesses they indulge in.
The legislators generally get their information from members of the public. Why is it that reporters can’t get the same leads? Possibly because the public doesn’t really trust the press. Another explanation, however, could be that the press does get hold of the story, but prefers not to take responsibility for getting it wrong and would prefer to let legislators reveal it instead. Meanwhile, reporters are content to just act as a mouthpiece, as if to say, “Don’t shoot the messenger.” Whichever explanation you subscribe to, both speak of the severity of the problem.
We started this article talking about the case of a reporter working for a Chinese-language newspaper. The Council of Grand Justices has decided to hear a petition for an interpretation of the ruling in this case and is due to debate it soon. This suggests that the council concedes that clauses in the Social Order Maintenance Act involve the constitutional-level issue of freedom of the press, that the issue is of sufficient gravity to warrant clarification and this case is a good opportunity to do just that.
The freedom of the press should not be taken as carte blanche for violations of privacy, and neither should privacy be considered some kind of second-class basic right. It is clear, then, that some restrictions do need to be placed on journalists. Nevertheless, using the Social Order Maintenance Act is not the right way to go about it.
Huang Juei-min is a law professor at Providence University.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with