A breakfast shop in Tainan that provides free meals to disadvantaged families announced that it was being sued after a disagreement with a customer was not resolved through arbitration.
A report on Thursday from the Chinese-language United Daily News said the disagreement occurred last month when a mother received the wrong order for her son and was told she had a bad attitude when she asked for it to be remade.
If the judge rules in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant will face criminal charges under the Offenses Against Reputation and Credit (妨害名譽及信用罪). Slander and defamation are criminal offenses under Articles 309 and 310 of the Criminal Code and an offender is subject to a fine or up to two years in jail if investigators determine that the offensive statements were publicly disseminated.
The 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights — to which Taiwan was a signatory before being expelled from the UN — determined that punishing libel and defamation as criminal offenses is a violation of individual rights. The UN Human Rights Committee reiterated this position in 2012.
Decriminalizing libel and defamation, which has been brought up by Taiwanese law experts numerous times over the past two decades, is an important step in strengthening the nation’s democracy.
The issue was first considered seriously in 2000, when Chen Chih-hsiang (陳志祥), then a Taipei District Court trial judge, called for an interpretation of the law while presiding over a libel case between a High Court judge and two officials of the Judicial Reform Foundation.
The Council of Grand Justices determined that criminal liability, rather than civil proceedings, is a more appropriate means given the “circumstances of the country.” They did not elaborate on what circumstances they were referring to, but added: “If an intrusion of a person’s reputation can be resolved with civil compensation, then rich people would be able to defame others as much as they wish. This is not what constitutional protection is meant to be.”
Following the council’s interpretation, Lin Tzu-yi (林子儀), a professor of constitutional law at National Taiwan University who specializes in freedom of expression, challenged the council’s take on free expression, calling it a “backward” decision.
In March last year, the national affairs conference on judicial reform discussed the issue when they met for their fifth subcommittee meeting at the Judicial Yuan.
Taiwan National Chiao Tung University law professor Lin Chih-chieh (林志潔), a leading member of the subcommittee, echoed others’ suggestions that cases related to insult, defamation and slander should be filed with civil courts, saying: “Prosecution of offenses relating to freedom of expression contravene the protection of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.”
Trying libel and defamation cases as criminal offenses ties up prosecutors and investigators, and leaves the law susceptible to abuse for vindictive purposes.
Taiwan also does not recognize some of the defenses against libel claims that most other covenant signatories recognize.
For example, in most nations, assertions made as expressions of opinion rather than statements of fact are usually dismissed, because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. Also, in most jurisdictions, statements made in anger, such as calling someone “an arse” during a drunken argument, would likely be considered mere vulgar abuse and not defamatory. This is not the case in Taiwan, where prosecutors approach these statements as factual assertions.
Libel laws are important for the protection of people’s reputations and financial livelihoods, but should not cause people to live in perpetual fear that they might unintentionally say the wrong thing at the wrong time and end up embroiled in a lawsuit. Libel should be handled by civil courts that are well-equipped to determine whether a statement has caused real damage.
Election seasons expose societal divisions and contrasting visions about the future of Taiwan. They also offer opportunities for leaders to forge unity around practical ideas for strengthening Taiwan’s resilience. Beijing has in the past sought to exacerbate divisions within Taiwan. For Beijing, a divided Taiwan is less likely to pursue permanent separation. It also is more manipulatable than a united Taiwan. A divided polity has lower trust in government institutions and diminished capacity to solve societal challenges. As my co-authors Richard Bush, Bonnie Glaser, and I recently wrote in our book US-Taiwan Relations: Will China’s Challenge Lead to a Crisis?, “Beijing wants
Taiwan has never had a president who is not from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) or the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Could next year’s presidential election put a third-party candidate in office? The contenders who have thrown their hats into the ring are Vice President William Lai (賴清德) of the DPP, New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) of the KMT and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲). A monthly poll released by my-formosa.com on Monday showed support for Hou nosediving from 26 percent to 18.3 percent, the lowest among the three presidential hopefuls. It was a surprising
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has nominated New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) as its candidate for next year’s presidential election. The selection process was replete with controversy, mainly because the KMT has never stipulated a set of protocols for its presidential nominations. Yet, viewed from a historical perspective, the KMT has improved to some extent. There are two fundamental differences between the KMT and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP): First, the DPP believes that the Republic of China on Taiwan is a sovereign country with independent autonomy, meaning that Taiwan and China are two different entities. The KMT, on the
The presidential election is to be held concurrently with the legislative elections in January next year. While former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) administration was fraught with challenges, as he never commanded a legislative majority, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) did not have this problem. In her two terms in office, she has been able to carry out her vision and policies and thereby bear full responsibility for her performance. As a result, the public is not only waiting on tenterhooks to see the results of the presidential election, but also whether the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) will be able to hold