Fri, Mar 29, 2002 page12

• Punish the leakers, not the media

  • By Paul Lin 林保華
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  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 (劉冠軍).

  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 (李登輝) and Lien Chan (連戰) were travelling abroad to promote "substantive diplomacy," their trips were often revealed in the media even before they had begun. As a result, China brought pressure to bear on the countries visited by Lee and Lien.

  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

  Comments will be moderated. Keep comments relevant to the article. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned. Final decision will be at the discretion of the Taipei Times.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    German warships to pass through Strait

  • 2

    Sino-Russian air patrol designed to counter US

  • 3

    Court orders Ko Wen-je’s detention

  • 4

    Silicon photonics alliance formed

  • 5

    Ko Wen-je release quashed