|
Amendment threatens democracy
Saturday, Apr 24, 2010, Page 8
In its second reading of the amendment to the Personal Data Protection Act
(個人資料保護法), the legislature passed the new, expanded version covering medical
care, genetics, sex, health checks, criminal records, contact information and
financial situation, as well as social activities and other personal data.
In addition, media and elected officials publishing personal information must
obtain the approval of the party concerned before doing so. Even if it is
necessary and in the public interest, one cannot identify the individual
concerned.
Violators face criminal charges or an administrative fine, and compensation in a
civil court case may reach NT$200 million (US$6.4 million).
Maybe legislators added this text because they are tired of sensational gossip,
or was it because they want to prevent other elected representatives, media
outlets or pundits from exposing irregularities?
They seem to care little that there are no examples of such legislation in other
countries, or that such a law will place severe restrictions on the media.
According to Article 2 of the amended law, no information about individual
activities, including “social activities,” may be “collected” or “obtained” by
anyone, including media outlets, without the prior consent of the party
concerned, even if the activity takes place in public.
Treating all individual information as secret ignores the fact that the right to
privacy is not unlimited and is not an absolute right. When individual and
public rights clash, there must be legal room to balance the different
interests, rather than always placing individual rights and interests above all
else.
According to the amendment, media reports or footage taken without the consent
of the concerned party could result in a lawsuit and a prison sentence or an
astronomical fine.
Media reporting will be significantly restricted and the media will no longer be
able to protect the public’s interests or fulfill the role of the fourth estate.
Individual information as defined by this amendment does not differentiate
between private and public individuals, public and private affairs or public and
private activities. Public institutions alone will be allowed to collect and
expose individual information without the approval of the individual concerned.
Under Article 6, public institutions can use gathered individual information to
protect national security or promote the public interest.
This flawed law gives officials a free hand to do whatever they want, while the
public must remain quiet.
Even more serious, the individual social activities protected by this amendment
include the activities of government officials. In other words, if a reporter
interviews an official but does not obtain explicit approval, the official
cannot be named. If the official is unhappy with the report, they can then sue
the reporter and demand compensation.
The media have to surrender unconditionally, give up their supervisory role and
become government mouthpieces, while the government can do anything it wants
without fear of media criticism.
This flawed and unconstitutional piece of legislation will destroy Taiwan’s
hard-earned freedoms of expression and the press overnight, effectively
demolishing a cornerstone of Taiwan’s democracy and freedom.
Until the amendment has passed a third legislative reading, there is no damage
done and there is still time to change the amendment.
The legislature must listen to public opinion and immediately suspend the
current amendment and instead wait for the Cabinet to submit a new version
during the next legislative session.
If the legislature proceeds with a third reading of the current version, our
last hope is that a constitutional interpretation by the Council of Grand
Justices will protect freedom of expression in Taiwan.
|
