Freedom of the press is not a catch-all defense, and whistle-blower protections cannot pardon every crime. Taiwan People’s Party Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) has recently been exposed for directing journalists to follow his political opponents, and has hailed former Central News Agency reporter Hsieh Hsing-en (謝幸恩) as a “brave whistle-blower.”
However, that obscures a core issue — information obtained illegally is not whistle-blowing, but a transgression of the law.
Huang has studied law, so he would certainly understand the Offenses Against Privacy section of the Criminal Code, the provisions of the Stalking and Harassment Prevention Act (跟蹤騷擾防制法) against tailing and surveillance, and the implications of the Personal Data Protection Act (個人資料保護法). It is not that he did not understand the potential consequences of his actions, but that he ignored them, putting political impact over operational legitimacy. The gamble of an ex-lawyer like Huang, knowingly crossing the line in full awareness of the risks involved, carries serious weight.
The Anti-Corruption and Whistleblower Protection Association (TAWPA) was cofounded by Huang in 2020 and is implicated in the scandal. Whistle-blower protection laws are enforced only when information is obtained legally. Naturally, this covers publicly exposing collusion between government and business. Targeted tailing and secretly filming in private domains, then invoking freedom of the press for protection is another matter. The free press must absolutely be protected, but the media should observe self-discipline to avoid becoming na tool for political interests.
There are precedents for alternative ways of handling things. Prosecutors investigated Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Yen Kuan-heng (顏寬恒) in relation to his dealings with family assets and property, and charged him with corruption and forgery, and he was last month found guilty. However, he was found not guilty of illegal acquisition of state-owned land. The entire investigation was carried out through above-ground legal measures and via public records. Legitimate whistle-blowing brings scandals to light through proper channels, not via the findings of targeted surveillance operations packaged in political rhetoric.
Although Huang praised Hsieh as a model journalist following her resignation, in reality, she was a political tool. Sympathy and crocodile tears do nothing to change the facts: The case did not constitute whistle-blowing, but foul play.
Huang knows all too well how to stir up media scandals with his alleged “paparazzi group” and how to spin them as just acts of whistle-blowing. He has made a calculated decision to choose impact over legality and political interests over professionalism. The real issue is not how Hsieh might defend herself or what support Huang might lend, but how someone in the legal field might rationalize illegal tactics in the pursuit of power.
Slogans are in no short supply — what Huang lacks is basic respect for Taiwan’s governing institutions. When politicians weaponize press freedom as a personal shield, it comes at the cost of media professionalism and public trust.
Chang Shang-yang is a farmer.
Translated by Gilda Knox Streader
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
RSS