Over the past year, there have been many moves to push a draft law aimed at protecting the welfare and interests of children and youths. Strong opinions both for and against this law have focused on technical issues related to how news-gathering agencies should appropriately handle reporting crimes. It should be possible to find a balance to avoid media sensationalism that the public finds unacceptable and, given journalistic self-regulation, legislation, market demands and other controls that are already in place, this shouldn’t be very difficult to achieve.
However, taking a look at the details of the draft law, it is worrying to see that it includes articles about what newspapers can print. This is tantamount to bringing the Publishing Act (出版法), which was scrapped years ago, back to life. This would deal a huge blow to Taiwan’s press freedom and its democracy.
The way reports on crimes are handled and presented is an area that should be left to media theory and practice. There is absolutely no need to list such things in a law aimed at protecting the welfare and interests of children and youths. Isn’t such a law an insult to the media and our institutions of higher learning? Are we supposed to believe that the media is essentially bad for our society?
Article 44 of the proposed act says that the print press cannot describe or depict in detail crimes such as drug use or have detailed explanations or pictures of suicide cases. It also says that the print press cannot describe or depict violent acts, print text or pictures that show blood, pornography, obscenities or forced sexual intercourse. Article 90, which deals with violations of article 44, says the publisher of a newspaper depicting content detrimental to the physical or mental well-being of children and youths shall be fined between NT$100,000 and NT$500,000 and that their name or title shall be announced publicly.
The 70-year-old Publishing Act, abolished on Jan. 12, 1999, shows many similarities with the currently proposed act. For example, Article 32 of Chapter 5 of the abolished act stated that publications were not allowed to publish information dealing with those who committed, or instigated others to commit, the crimes of insurrection or treason, interference with public administration, voting or public order, or offenses against religious rituals or sexual morality.
In other words, the regulations on newspapers proposed in the draft and the penalties for those who violate these regulations are not just about “crimes” and “details,” they are also detailed to the point of saying what can and cannot be reported, which essentially makes the act an official, government directed “news gathering guide,” which is absolutely ridiculous.
If we judge things by the standards listed in the draft law following the first review, the detailed media reports on the recent election-eve shooting of a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) politician Sean Lien (連勝文) were illegal. However, we no longer live in the past and the proposed draft should not be aimed at “purifying” everything that passes before the eyes of our youth. We cannot hide the real world from them. They need to develop a certain amount of “immunity,” that can only come from seeing things as they are, if we want them to be capable of taking part in broader society. We cannot have them living in some virtual world created by adults where everything is rosy.
The definitions in the law must be clear to avoid disputes over how it will be executed. We must avoid a situation where media outlets do not know what they can and cannot report on and we must not let moral norms override all other concerns, as this will erode away at press freedoms. Furthermore, the proposed law entails excessive administrative discretionary power, which will give unscrupulous officials too much freedom to do as they please.
Media regulations must not get out of hand as this would give government agencies the opportunity to threaten or bribe people to control the media. This would not only deprive the media of their function as the Fourth Estate, but it would also cause a “chilling effect” detrimental to the development of values such as pluralism and democracy.
The first draft included mechanisms for appeal and review, but the Ministry of the Interior deleted this saying no such set-up exists and that the manpower is inadequate. This means local governments will be in charge of sanctions, which highlights the slipshod nature of the legislation. Government officials are now putting across the false image that everything is perfect and they give no thought to changing with the times to benefit Taiwanese. Now, they are clearly trying to revive the out-dated Publishing Act which was scrapped through the draft law in an attempt to restrict press freedom.
These actions are aimed at controlling the media and misleading the public in an attempt at bringing back the old authoritarian system of government. This is very worrying.
Lu I-ming is the former publisher and president of Taiwan Shin Sheng Daily News.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS