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
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 —
Prior to marrying a Taiwanese and moving to Taiwan, a Chinese woman, surnamed Zhang (張), used her elder sister’s identity to deceive Chinese officials and obtain a resident identity card in China. After marrying a Taiwanese, surnamed Chen (陳) and applying to move to Taiwan, Zhang continued to impersonate her sister to obtain a Republic of China ID card. She used the false identity in Taiwan for 18 years. However, a judge ruled that her case does not constitute forgery and acquitted her. Does this mean that — as long as a sibling agrees — people can impersonate others to alter, forge
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