The Ministry of Health and Welfare recently convened media representatives, children’s welfare organizations and field experts, among others, to re-examine media coverage guidelines of child assault cases.
In the future, similar coverage would be allowed to report the workplace of a suspect, as long as the suspect is still working at an institution involving children, people with disabilities or the elderly, and has not yet been cleared of legal suspicion. This is based on the need to protect public welfare and prevent further harm.
However, information about the victim must not be disclosed in a manner that allows identification.
The question comes down to the definition of an “identifiable” report, a concept with no clear legal definition: How should it be determined? Had the media reported the name of the kindergarten in the recent kindergarten child assault cases, any acquaintances, neighbors, colleagues of parents or third-party individuals could have indirectly identified the victims, potentially resulting in secondary victimization.
That said, withholding the name of the kindergarten could result in more children being harmed.
The media’s disclosure of the kindergarten’s name would only permit specific individuals — such as the victims’ acquaintances and neighbors — to identify them, while the general public would not be able to do so.
Furthermore, acquaintances and neighbors disclosing the names or identifying information of child victims would contravene Article 69 of the Protection of Children and Youths Welfare and Rights Act (兒童及少年福利與權益保障法) and thus be penalized.
Weighing the pros and cons, as well as following the principle of proportionality, the Ministry of Health and Welfare should ease restrictions and allow the media to reveal the workplaces of sexual assault suspects. This would ensure the public’s right to information and help prevent further harm.
Yeh Yu-cheng is a secretary at the Pingtung Public Health Bureau.
Translated by Wang Yun-fei
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS