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
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS