After Taipei MRT killer Cheng Chieh (鄭捷) was executed on Tuesday last week, several counselors came forward to speak about their experience of counseling Cheng.
One of them kept saying Cheng was a dreadful man and the kind of death-row prisoner who make her want to bring a personal safety alarm with her on visits, because he was so dreadful and his words and actions showed that he did not even recognize that he had made mistakes.
Another counselor — from a religious background — took on the role of fortune teller, claiming the ability to know a person’s character from their handwriting.
“Cheng’s signature was big and scratchy, which not only shows his egocentricity, but also that his ability to write had deteriorated due to his long-term overindulgence in the cyberworld,” he said.
It is unlikely that either of them are counselors or coaches with professional training in the appropriate fields.
However, the statements they made could confuse the public into believing that they provide professional counseling and coaching.
The fact of the matter is, by posting these comments on Facebook and divulging their patient’s secrets to reporters, they have made the biggest mistake in their purported profession, the goal of which is to offer help to people: They violated confidentiality.
Irrespective of the mistakes a client might have made, everything discussed in counseling sessions should remain confidential. This fundamental principle is supposed to be upheld by psychologists, volunteers, counselors and others in the field.
Even semi-professional counselors and volunteers at Teacher Chang Foundation or Taiwan Lifeline International have to adhere to this principle, because when clients are willing to confide their deepest secrets in their counselors, it means that they trust tem, and if the counselor violates professional ethics and breach confidentiality, it becomes be very difficult to establish trusting relationships between counselors and clients.
This remains true even if with a client on death row such as Cheng, because if such a key professional tenet is disregarded so openly, the public might become fearful of, or antagonistic toward the profession, which is why it is essential for counseling-related groups to establish clear guidelines for everyone involved.
When patients are willing to trust their counselors, share their inner world and describing things they have never told anyone else, this trust is as much a privilege as a burden, especially when painful, dark and heart-rending experiences are uncovered during sessions.
This type of work is extremely challenging for counselors, who must come to terms with their own inner struggles and manage their own emotions. However, they can seek professional assistance to deal with any problems that arise. This is especially common when they are counseling perpetrators of violence.
To be clear, confidentiality is the basic responsibility of counselors at any level. Only by erecting this safety net can counselors be ready to deal with the issues of their patients. Only by doing so can there be any hope for real changes of behavior.
This principle holds true regardless of who the recipients of counseling are and what crimes they have committed. There are certainly exceptions to this rule — when, for example, a client clearly states that they intend to commit suicide, murder, an act of domestic violence or sexual assault. Details on the exceptions can be found in the Taiwan Institute of Guidance and Counseling consultative professional code of ethics.
The confidentiality principle is so deep-seated that certified psychologists, social workers and school counselors would never make these kind of mistakes.
The Psychologists’ Act (心理師法), Social Worker Act (社會工作師法) and Student Guidance and Counseling Act (學生輔導法) all stipulate unambiguous regulations on confidentiality. Violations can result in penalties.
However, there is no law regulating semi-professional counselors. So mistakes can only be avoided by self-reflection, moral discipline and professional development. Sometimes, the law alone is not enough. Prisons and other judicial agencies should develop mechanisms to manage and help semi-professionals — such as counselors and volunteer coaches — to improve their ethical behavior.
It must be sincerely hoped that no counselors again abuse the privileges granted by their patients as a means to obtain media attention, raise their self esteem and increase their sense of achievement or satisfy any other personal interests.
Wang Ta-wei is an Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology at National Pingtung 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
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
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath