In a move that has prompted heated debate about national security and freedom of the press, prosecutors raided the offices of Taiwan's Next magazine (壹週刊) after it published articles containing a large amount of classified information about secret accounts at the National Security Bureau (NSB). There are no easy answers in this debate, because threats to both national security and press freedom can vary in magnitude and must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. It is truly regrettable, however, that this incident involves Next magazine.
Although Next's sister organizations in Hong Kong, Apple Daily (蘋果日報) and the Hong Kong Next, often provoke disputes with their "paparazzi" style, they have the courage to insist on freedom and democracy and the right to offend China. For this reason, they have been forbidden from reporting in China, and Beijing strongly discourages companies from placing advertisements with them.
In the current incident in Taiwan, their offices were raided because they published these documents, but I'm confident that the prosecutors are not really after the media. Rather, they hope that by means of the raid they will uncover the source of the materials and identify the accomplices of Liu Kuan-chun (
There was in fact no need for them to confiscate printed matter, because no restrictions were placed on printing and distribution. For this reason, the boss of Next Media Ltd, Jimmy Lai (黎智英), who was in Hong Kong when the incident occurred, expressed his continuing confidence in Taiwan's security, freedom and open democratic society, and he immediately returned to Taiwan to deal with the incident's aftermath.
Generally speaking, when the media obtain an exclusive report, their first consideration is the public's right to know. Issues of national security may also be considered, but not as thoroughly as they would be by government. This is especially true when there appears to have been malfeasance. On occasions where this is the case, the media sees itself as exercising its oversight role as the fourth estate. For that reason, the authorities should strive to avoid taking action against the media.
In the US during the Vietnam war, there were cases of the media publishing classified documents from the Pentagon. At the time, this was considered to have damaged national security. Ultimately, however, with the Vietnam War occurring half a world away from America's shores, the courts finally decided in favor of the press.
Of course there are differences between Taiwan and the US. The US is a superpower. Not even last year's Sept. 11 terrorist attacks succeeded in shaking the foundations of the country. Taiwan, on the other hand, is like a lonely vessel floating on a vast sea. It is a much more fragile entity. China, that domineering power, regularly whips up storms over the Taiwan Strait and national security issues are unable to withstand the onslaught. The media should keep these factors firmly in mind when publishing information relating to national secrets.
In fact the main issue in this case is not the media at all, but the motive of the person who leaked the information to the media.
During the KMT era, when Lee Teng-hui (
Frequently, the media disclosures weren't a case of the media digging up classified information, but rather of secrets being deliberately leaked to the media so that Beijing would be informed. It is those who leaked the secrets who should be pursued, not the media. Even so, the media must exercise self-discipline.
After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, for example, because the enemy's attacks on US soil constituted a matter of national security, the US media behaved differently from the way they had behaved during the Vietnam War. This collective self-discipline, however, caused some to worry that press freedom had been damaged.
It has not been long since Taiwan emerged from authoritarianism to become a democracy, and it is absolutely imperative that the media continue to perform its monitoring role. Preventing and investigating abuses of power and self-aggrandizement by politicians is also a necessity. But we can't afford to pay the huge price of sacrificing national security in return for some systemic reforms. All media should carefully consider the question of whether or not to publish something, or how much of something should be published -- and be sure not to take action against the interests of their own people and in support of those of the enemy.
The media also must avoid being used by politicians, especially by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP.) This latest exposure of the NSB's classified documents, for example, relates to Taiwan's 1996 missile crisis, during which certain special operations were conducted in order to resolve the situation. Was this illegal? Was Taiwan's only "legal" alternative to refuse to mobilize its forces, and allow itself to be invaded by China? Is jeopardizing Taiwan's democracy really worth consideration as a solution to an alleged corruption case?
Serve up democratic Taiwan to the CCP and there'll be myriad corruption cases to follow. That will really sound the death knell for Taiwan's press freedom.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in New York.
Translated by Ethan Harkness and Scudder Smith
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS