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
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS