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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS