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
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