The Cabinet recently conducted an Internet workshop in an attempt to “update” officials’ online profiles. It said that the key to open data is not technology, but attitude. Admittedly, it is never too late to learn. Nonetheless, recent actions of both central and local governments highlight why Taiwan lags so far behind in open data.
The Freedom of Government Information Act (政府資訊公開法) refers to two types of data publication: active and passive. Unless information meets the requirements of one of the nine conditions of confidentiality listed in Article 18 of the act, legitimizing its exclusion from publication, requested government information should be made public.
Article 7 of the act stipulates 10 types of government information that should be proactively made public. Publication of such information is compulsory, even without a request.
In other words, any legitimate request for the attainment or duplication of government information by a qualified individual cannot be rejected by the government without good reason.
These regulations are to ensure an open government and to public access to sufficient government information.
Open information can be used for value-added activities and new research, both of which are conducive to improving governance efficiency and social innovation.
Official government Web sites present technical hurdles that must be overcome, and many government agencies appear to be abusing the law to maintain an information advantage, which must be addressed for open data to be realized.
For example, National Taiwan University Hospital’s interpretation of the act is that any information gathered before the implementation of the act does not have to be made public. This is a violation of the Ministry of Justice’s interpretation of the act.
The Ministry of Health and Welfare selectively chooses not to publicize certain research reports that should have been proactively made public. After I filed a request for reports, only summaries of the reports were provided.
Many agencies have long maintained an overly conservative mindset when it comes to providing or publishing government documents, resulting in secret governance by a small group of people — an outcome of an authoritarianism.
“Documents related to public works and procurements” should be proactively made public according to Article 7 of the act.
Why then have Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) and his staff, who champion transparent governance and know that the public is eager to ascertain certain information, still not proactively publicized all relevant procurement documents?
Why did the Taipei City Government only allow certain consultants to selectively take photographs of parts of the documents and upload them on Facebook? Also, why did it only provide the documents to members of the Clean Government Transparency Commission?
Clean Government Transparency Commission members’ legal status is not higher than that of any other citizen wanting to obtain government information.
How can the city government justify its violations of the Freedom of Government Information Law?
Is it true transparency when open data is only selectively or partially made public, or just a dirty trick by politicians working for their own interests?
If a government agency is incapable of applying the law properly, or fulfilling its obligations as stipulated by the law, and treats government information as a tool for manipulating public opinion, what is being achieved?
If the Cabinet does not even bother to address abuses of the law by government agencies, how can there be real open data?
Considering how conservative the government is about publicizing data, it is unbelievably liberal when publicizing or utilizing private information of members of the public.
For example, the national health insurance database stores sensitive private medical histories, but researchers, pharmaceutical and insurance companies have long been granted access to it, and the public cannot exercise their legal right to claim or delete their personal information.
The Ministry of Finance allows certain academics to access people’s taxation information, but has the ministry been authorized by these people to do so?
Can the government guarantee that anonymization technology, which is extremely defective, can protect people’s privacy?
Does forcing the public to provide information make it acceptable for the government and special interest groups to misuse sensitive information in the name of open data?
If the government cannot take measures to safeguard the public’s personal information under the open data policy, the policy is nothing but an anti-democratic trick to desensitize the public.
Liu Ching-yi is a professor in the College of Social Sciences at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Ethan Zhan
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