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
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS