As soon as the Government Information Office (GIO) revealed its plans to entrust a public interest organization with the observation and evaluation of print and electronic media, many of the larger newspapers went on the offensive. They opposed the plans so vehemently they even accused the GIO of reviving martial-law-era media controls.
In the end, President Chen Shui-bian (
The freedoms of expression and of the press (or the media) are important cornerstones of democratic and cultural development. The state cannot shirk its responsibility in protecting these freedoms. There are, however, limitations to the freedoms of expression and the press, just as there are limitations to other basic constitutional rights.
Interpretation No. 509 by the Council of Grand Justices clearly states that there is no law stating that restricting the methods of dissemination is an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of expression. For example, the protection of the physical and mental development of youth or the protection of privacy may, when necessary, be reasons to restrict news reporting. To bring order to the media and improve the chaotic market situation that has followed the democratization of Taiwan, both self- and external censorship should be applied, balancing the need to guarantee the freedom of the press and the requirement that the media live up to their public responsibilities.
Even though the state can legally regulate media and is free to choose how it does so, the shadow of White Terror and literary inquisition still looms large after 50 years of authoritarian rule. Moreover, the ideological divisions over independence and unification make investigations or research into the content of media reporting the likely target of fierce media opposition. Because this society lacks mutual trust, it would matter little whether the GIO undertakes these tasks itself or outsources them to public interest organizations.
From the authoritarian KMT era until the present, the GIO has always been a mouthpiece of the political leadership policing the media. The GIO's dark history of dealing with print media is endless. Having such an administrative institution monitoring the media is not only a matter of conflicting roles, but it also goes against the requirement for systemic protection of the freedom of the press in democratic countries.
Let's use post-World War II West Germany as an example. Following from the Nazi period, when the media was restricted to function as the government's propaganda tool, the Basic Law (the Constitution) provided clear guarantees for the freedoms of publication, broadcasting, film and information. These freedoms could only be restricted through legislation, and this led to a separation in principle between government and the media. When the individual states create press or broadcasting legislation (Germany is a federation where states deal with the regulation of the media), they all adhere to this principle, thus bringing order to the media.
The most pressing matter for the Cabinet is therefore the active initiation of a national communications commission. It should use this kind of independent insti-tution, which should include scholars and experts from a wide range of fields, to build a post-authoritarian media order based on the principle of "a bit more expertise and a bit less politicking."
Further, regarding media self-censorship, media professionals should follow the example of lawyers and accountants and establish a professional association organized and led by themselves, authorizing it to establish a certification system to improve the quality of its members. Moreover, any violation of professional media ethics or any legal violations should lead to the association taking disciplinary action according to ethical regulations formulated by the association itself. This would guarantee the freedom of the press and avoid the ugly image of government intervention in media affairs, as well as further media fulfillment of their public responsibilities.
The GIO could save its breath and stop initiating various publishing laws or so-called ethical regulations for the mass media. This would avoid the addition of any meaningless political disputes.
Mark Chen is a DPP legislator and Chen Yaw-shyang holds a doctorate in law from Heidelberg 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