Media reports can at times be quite annoying as empty, meaningless news is hyped up. Sometimes this hurts the people concerned or even others in the periphery who have nothing at all to do with the issue at hand.
With this in mind, the first subgroup of the preparatory committee for the National Congress on Judicial Reform has suggested that media should be restricted from reporting on ongoing legal cases based on the position that investigations thta are still open should not be made public.
This might seem a worthy goal aimed at protecting people’s legal rights, but it is actually a move in the wrong direction. While it is true that many news reports seem to be made up, it is also true that police and prosecutors often deliberately leak information. Restricting the media from reporting such leaks is a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press.
To keep ongoing investigations secret and retain the presumption of innocence are two important legal principles. In this respect, the past performance of police, prosecutors and the media has been disappointing.
The much-discussed case of the murder of a young model surnamed Chen (陳) and the allegations that the perpetrator’s friend, surnamed Liang (梁), set the whole thing up is a case in point.
Police and prosecutors released erroneous information which influenced public opinion and media outlets, social media Web sites and commentators played it up, in effect setting Liang up for trial in the court of public opinion. These are issues in desperate need of in-depth review.
The subgroup has proposed that media outlets attach a warning highlighting the presumption of innocence to reports about ongoing investigations. This of course is to protect our legal rights and it would help avoid the court of public opinion, but if we are to thoroughly implement the idea that ongoing investigations should be kept secret, the biggest responsibility should fall on the shoulders of police and prosecutors — the sources of reporters’ information.
Police and prosecutors representatives on the subgroup proposed a resolution that rules stipulating penalties should be introduced, and it was even suggested by a lawyer that media outlets violating the principle that ongoing investigations be kept secret should be handled in accordance with the Criminal Code.
Using legal means to restrict media outlets from reporting the news sets a precedent for using the law to clamp down on all reporting and it would be a heavy blow to the nation’s reputation for media freedom.
A member of the subgroup demanded that media outlets be prohibited from commenting on legal cases that have not been completed, based on Article 22 of the Radio and Television Act (廣播電視法). However, that article only applies to ongoing investigations and trials, and the suggestion is entirely unreasonable as the media must be able to comment on a court’s verdict, regardless of whether it is the first, second or third trial.
Fortunately, the suggestion was not accepted. If it had, it would have violated the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press.
Self-discipline is important in the news media. Both the Constitution and Constitutional Interpretation No. 689 protect the freedom of the press and the media’s status as the fourth estate.
As the fourth estate, the media monitors the government, the legislature and the judiciary, and their exercise of power.
The National Congress on Judicial Reform should not use the protection of legal rights as a tool to suppress the freedom of the press.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
The central bank has launched a redesign of the New Taiwan dollar banknotes, prompting questions from Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — “Are we not promoting digital payments? Why spend NT$5 billion on a redesign?” Many assume that cash will disappear in the digital age, but they forget that it represents the ultimate trust in the system. Banknotes do not become obsolete, they do not crash, they cannot be frozen and they leave no record of transactions. They remain the cleanest means of exchange in a free society. In a fully digitized world, every purchase, donation and action leaves behind data.
A large majority of Taiwanese favor strengthening national defense and oppose unification with China, according to the results of a survey by the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC). In the poll, 81.8 percent of respondents disagreed with Beijing’s claim that “there is only one China and Taiwan is part of China,” MAC Deputy Minister Liang Wen-chieh (梁文傑) told a news conference on Thursday last week, adding that about 75 percent supported the creation of a “T-Dome” air defense system. President William Lai (賴清德) referred to such a system in his Double Ten National Day address, saying it would integrate air defenses into a
RSS