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.
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