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
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS