|
TAIWAN'S FREEWHEELING MEDIA GENERALLY
OPERATE with little interference from a government that presents itself
as a model for democracy in the region. However, the young administration
of President Chen Shui-bian and his Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) did
suffer a few embarrassments arising from its treatment of (and by) the press.
Chen narrowly won election in March, ending more than 50 years of uninterrupted
rule by the Nationalist Party.
On October 3, in an effort to discover the source of a leaked government
document, Taipei district prosecutors raided the editorial offices of the
China Times Express and the homes of two of its editors. The raid
happened after the paper published details from a confidential affidavit
in the investigation of Liu Kuan-chun, a National Security Bureau adviser
who disappeared after allegedly embezzling at least 90 million Taiwan dollars
(US$2.9 million). The Association of Taiwan Journalists protested the incident,
noting that the prosecutors' actions violated the Constitution and represented
a major step backward for democratic reform in the country.
Just days later, on October 6, the Defense Ministry accused a local reporter
of seeking classified military information and referred the case to the
High Court for indictment. Hung Che-cheng, a reporter for the newspaper
Power Daily, was investigated after he published a story on the eve
of the new president's May 20 inauguration, alleging that three warships
from communist China had been spotted outside a harbor in northeastern Taiwan.
The story was politically sensitive because Beijing was furious about President
Chen's support of formal Taiwanese independence, and had all but threatened
war over his election. (The Nationalist Party had also stoked fears of a
looming mainland invasion in a bid to scare voters from choosing Chen's
DPP.)
The most serious threat to press freedom in Taiwan remains the persistence
of criminal penalties for libel, defamation, and insult. Vice President
Annette Lu threatened to invoke these provisions after a weekly magazine
called The Journalist ran a November cover story in which Lu was
accused of spreading rumors that President Chen was having an affair. Lu,
a fierce pro-democracy activist during the decades of martial law, initially
demanded that the magazine publish an apology on the front pages of six
major dailies, and have the same apology broadcast by six major media outlets.
When The Journalist refused to meet these conditions, Lu's lawyers
announced her decision to pursue civil action on December 14. "Whether or
not to file a criminal lawsuit...would depend on the attitude of the weekly,"
the lawyers warned.
Though The Journalist has stood by its story, some media observers
noted that the case raised concerns about the credibility of the Taiwan
press, which has a reputation for rumor-mongering.
The press won a major legal victory at year's end, with the successful conclusion
of a long-running criminal-libel suit pitting the Hong Kong magazine Yazhou
Zhoukan against Liu Tai-ying, an influential business manager of Taiwan's
once all-powerful Nationalist Party. The suit arose from an article reporting
that Liu had offered US$15 million to U.S. president Bill Clinton's re-election
fund. This was one of the first press articles to expose the role of Taiwan
money in the 1996 American presidential elections.
Liu lost the case in April 1997, but almost immediately filed an appeal.
On December 29, the High Court acquitted Yazhou Zhoukan, affirming
the lower court's ruling that "a conviction of libel must be based on malicious
intent and that when reporting on matters of public interest, the news media
will not be liable for libel if it has no malicious intent to defame, has
made reasonable reporting efforts, and if it believes in the truth of its
report." The reasoning adopted by the courts relied heavily on a 1997 amicus
brief in support of the defendants that was filed by CPJ and 10 major U.S.
news organizations, including The New York Times, The Washington
Post, Dow Jones, The Associated Press, and ABC.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of Taiwan issued a ruling on an unrelated case
that also affirmed the actual malice standard established by the Yazhou
Zhoukan decision, thus raising the bar for the prosecution in criminal
libel cases.
|