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.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
The war between Israel and Iran offers far-reaching strategic lessons, not only for the Middle East, but also for East Asia, particularly Taiwan. As tensions rise across both regions, the behavior of global powers, especially the US under the US President Donald Trump, signals how alliances, deterrence and rapid military mobilization could shape the outcomes of future conflicts. For Taiwan, facing increasing pressure and aggression from China, these lessons are both urgent and actionable. One of the most notable features of the Israel-Iran war was the prompt and decisive intervention of the US. Although the Trump administration is often portrayed as
RSS