Compared with their colleagues in many other countries, the Taiwanese media stand out as aggressive purveyors of gossip.
The remedy to such a culture, however, is not the updated Personal Data Protection Act (個人資料保護法). That law represents a setback for democracy.
It is highly regrettable that both the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) support the act, which contains such vague phrases as acting in the “public interest” and the use of “generally accessible data.” This leaves far too much room for interpretation and history is full of examples of how such ill-defined language can be used to undermine democracy and free speech. China is probably suitably inspired.
That politicians have asked academics to define “public interest” and “generally accessible data” helps in no way. Such definitions are unlikely to be any more farsighted than the academics providing them. There is also no guarantee that academics will be able to agree any more than politicians on a single definition. Ultimately, it will fall to the courts to decide.
Tragically, the act’s passage through the legislature was met by inept politicians sleeping on the job. A previous draft was watered down to such an extent that the media are now exempt from a requirement to inform and obtain consent from individuals before publishing their personal data, even when gathered through public and social activities.
The media are now allowed to search and collect “generally accessible data” about individuals when acting in the “public interest.” The uncertainty surrounding these terms also has implications for bloggers, non-governmental associations and individuals.
Publicly obtainable personal data may now be used, unless the person concerned has an overriding interest that enjoys higher protection than the freedom of expression. In such cases individuals can demand that related data are not published, leaving room for yet further interpretation.
In Germany, a clear distinction is made between safeguarding the data of ordinary citizens and “individuals of public interest.” People who are well known to the general public through the media must accept that they will be reported on extensively, including information regarding their private lives. Such individuals for the most part enjoy the spotlight. The general public has a right to be kept informed about their lives, with the proviso that reporting does not become harassment, as was the case with former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) daughter, who was followed every day for months in Taiwan and overseas. In the interest of maintaining a free press, such limits need to be defined very broadly.
Regulations preventing personal data from being “combined” might increase the protection afforded individuals by ensuring personal profiles do not end up in private databases. However, such information can still be used in the media, making this a highly dubious clause.
The lawmakers were probably well intentioned, but the solution they have come up with is worse than the original problem. Those who believe they have been harassed or slandered already have legal recourse available to them, without this act.
Instead, a broader approach needs to be taken, beginning with the promotion of better journalism by a more professional media. This could include such things as a code of conduct, quality standards, the professional education of would-be journalists through internships and independent schools of journalism.
A similar law enacted in Europe or elsewhere in the Western world would have been met with outrage. Unfortunately, in Taiwan it is just one more piece of evidence that democracy is in retreat.
Michael Danielsen is the chairman of Taiwan Corner. Gunter Whittome is a writer living in Taipei.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS