On March 23, police used force to push reporters around and beat them at the Executive Yuan and inappropriately expelled reporters from inside the building. The same thing happened early in the morning on April 28, when Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) ordered that protesters be removed from Zhongxiao W Road.
This is not very different from the activities of the authoritarian dictatorships that blocked news reporting during the Jasmine Revolution in Africa.
Large numbers of police forcibly removed reporting journalists from the overpasses and sidewalks and even forced them to leave by taking their glasses and safety helmets. Reporters were hurt and their equipment was damaged, stopping them from covering and reporting the news.
Resorting to state violence in this way to suppress the freedom of the press and ignoring the public’s right to information is something that every citizen should protest against.
Any kind of news report begins with newsgathering. Correct gathering and handling of news material is inextricably linked to waiting on-site to record what happens. How else can we expect to report truthfully?
When people can no longer find truthful information in the various media, any attempt at public oversight becomes nonsensical. Newsgathering was declared an important aspect of press freedom in the Council of Grand Justices’ Constitutional Interpretation No. 689.
According to the interpretation, it not only involves the fundamental rights of media and reporters, it is also a pillar of democracy that every citizen relies on and it must not be arbitrarily removed by the government.
Even more important, the interpretation also states that when a reporter believes that the reporting of a certain news event “is of public value in nature, which means it is of concern to the public and worth reporting (for instance disclosure of a crime or major misconduct ... competence and performance of public officials, trustworthiness of a politician ... etc),” that further highlights the importance of newsgathering.
This is why police behavior enforcing the law on the site of a protest must be the target of public oversight, which further explains why the value to the public of newsgathering in free conditions must not be compromised.
In particular, sudden or urgent protests or complaints must not be controlled by the government or police by assigning special areas for reporters in advance or even wantonly and at any time changing the position and size of these areas. If that were accepted, reporters and the public would restrict themselves and legitimize the government’s and the police authorities’ restrictions on the freedom of newsgathering.
During the incidents described above, police used various methods of dubious legality to remove reporters, methods that lacked all legitimacy.
Not only did police illegally use force and hurt people, they also violated the right to individual liberty and the security of a person under Article 9 and the freedom to seek, receive and impart information under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This really is an essential freedom of newsgathering that must never be compromised.
Constitutional Interpretation No. 689 questions the ability of police officers to determine which reporting behaviors should be accorded protection under the freedom of the press. It also clearly states that the organs concerned should consider reviewing the law or write a dedicated law to perfect the regulations.
At the time, the organ concerned, the Ministry of the Interior and its minister, Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺), were well aware of this situation, but procrastinated.
As a consequence, there is even more reason to demand that all reporting behavior in connection to complaints and protests should be given the greatest possible protection under press freedom regulations to be able to avoid abuse of power by the police, and police violence.
As a constitutional academic concerned with press freedom, I want to tell reporters to take their freedom seriously and protect it, to collect the news that should be enjoyed in a constitutional democracy. When a government claiming to be democratic suppresses press freedom, it is time for those who work in the media to become extraordinarily cautious.
At the same time, Constitutional Interpretation No. 689 states: “The freedom of newsgathering within the freedom of press not only protects the newsgathering of a journalist who works for a press institution but also protects an ordinary person who gathers information with the aim of providing newsworthy information to the public or promoting the discussion of public affairs to supervise the government.”
As a result, any citizen who is concerned with the development of the nation’s constitutional democracy should use their newsgathering freedom as a citizen reporter at protests. This is the way to turn the current era into a powerful era where we are all reporters.
Liu Ching-yi is a professor in the Graduate Institute of National Development at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS