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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS