On March 20 the China Times published secret documents allegedly provided by Liu Kuan-chun, who fled abroad September 3, 2000. The documents claim that former National Security Bureau (NSB) head Yin Wen-tsung set up secret accounts in 1994 code-named "Fengtien" and "Tangyang" of some NT$3.5 billion at the express instructions of then-president Lee Teng-hui. The money was to be used for "practical diplomacy," studies on the "state-to-state" formulation of relations with mainland China, and other activities related to international relations and the international status of the country. Included was more than US$10 million given to South Africa to extend diplomatic relations for another two years, as well as US$11 million given away by President Lee on a visit to Panama.

The shock wave following the exposure of these secret documents soon engulfed the media. On the very day of their publication, the Taiwan High Court Prosecutors' Office received a report from the NSB claiming the weekly magazine Next was preparing to leak state secrets in its issue to be published on March 21. Consequently prosecutors raided the offices of Next, the residence of the reporter who wrote the story, Hsieh Chung-liang, and the printing plant, confiscating Hsieh's article, letters and 160,000 copies of the magazine. The next day the NSB also drew up an accusation against the China Times for publishing news about financing contained in secret files.

The raid by authorities on the media immediately raised a storm of protest from all parts of the political spectrum.

The Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) legislative caucus accused the People First Party's (PFP) chairman James Soong of being the instigator behind the leak of the state secrets. They demanded that the PFP on its own initiative reveal to the prosecutors the source of the documents. Soong then stated the PFP did not agree that the government or any political person should use the "rubric of national security" to "cover up crimes," and that it further could not accept the use of conspiracy theories to change the subject or cloud the issue.

This domestic political row has caused some concern in the United States. The American Committee to Protect Journalists said it had issued a report on these activities of the Taiwan government that, in its opinion, had endangered press freedom, and had sent the report to the US State Department and the United Nations. According to reports, after the leaking of NSB secret documents, the US sent word that it might be forced to postpone two military cooperation programs scheduled to begin next month. The future effects of the security scandal are still up in the air.

The line between national security and media freedom is the real focus of debate in this whole controversy. Minister of Justice Chen Ding-nan said that when the New York Times published the "Pentagon Papers" the US government petitioned for a restraining order to stop the their publication. Up to now, however, the Taiwan High Court Prosecutors' Office has not prohibited the publication of Next. Because the old Publications Law has been abolished, the government cannot now examine beforehand any media materials. Thus the NSB recently petitioned the local Taipei court for a preliminary injunction against Next, but it was refused. This is on a par with US standards.

Wang Chao-peng, an associate professor of law at Taiwan University, wrote an article pointing out that the contentious part of the raid was that the prosecutors confiscated more than 100,000 copies of the magazine. If the purpose of the government's confiscation was to use the material as evidence in some future trial, then confiscating ten or a hundred copies would have been enough. Such a large number of copies confiscated would seem beyond any reasonable parameters, would constitute a serious violation of civil property rights and would adversely affect the freedom of speech.

Wang Tuoh, chief executive of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), believes that if the money spent by the NSB were used to gather intelligence or to further diplomacy or national security and that full disclosure of this might damage national security, then, indeed, some thought should be given to how the press reports it. This is particularly the case when an in-house scandal at the NSB involves internal dissension or the intrusion of politics. If the media is swept up as a tool in political wrangling, not only might the general public be misled, national security might also be endangered. Nevertheless, the NSB cannot use "national security" to protect itself or shirk responsibility. The closed and unhealthy nature of its internal control structure is perhaps the biggest threat to national security.

Public opinion is demanding that laws be quickly passed to clarify such issues as the line between the freedom of information and national secrecy, and the institutionalization of intelligence and public security structures and oversight mechanisms, rather than devolve into debate over whether the press is immune from search and seizure, or the limits of national security.

All political parties have agreed to establish an "investigative committee" that will seek authority to investigate and take evidence in order to get to the bottom of the matter. The participating members must sign a secrecy agreement. Even after loss of their member status, the agreement will still be binding, thus setting up a mechanism of oversight and control.

The Ministry of Justice is anxious to send draft versions of a freedom of information law and a law on the protection of state secrets to the Executive Yuan for its approval, so that they can be referred to the Legislative Yuan in the hope that they will be included on the priority agenda and thus become law during the current session of the legislature.

As discussion was in full swing, President Chen Shui-bian spoke out on the issue for the first time at a meeting of top military officials on March 25. Arguing for the "nationalization of the intelligence agencies" and the "institutionalization of intelligence and public security structures," President Chen said there is no necessary contradiction or opposition between national security and press freedom: "No one can use national security as a reason to snuff out the vitality of democracy or, even worse, use the banner of national security as an excuse to damage the freedom of the press."

p.064

When the China Times and the weekly magazine Next published revelations about secret National Security Bureau (NSB) accounts, prosecuting authorities raided their premises and lodged a formal accusation against them of leaking national defense secrets. This ignited a fierce debate on freedom of the press vs. national security. The issue of Next in question, however, subsequently saw its sales figures soar. (photo by Hsueh Chi-kuang)