請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/10247
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 黃銘傑 | |
dc.contributor.author | Yuan Chou | en |
dc.contributor.author | 周原 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-20T21:13:46Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2012-02-20 | |
dc.date.available | 2021-05-20T21:13:46Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2011-02-20 | |
dc.date.issued | 2011 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2011-02-10 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 中文文獻
黃銘傑、王能君、莊永丞、李立如(2005)。《組織內部不法資訊揭露法制之研究》。台北市:行政院研究發展考核委員會。 林修全(2010 年3 月23 日)。〈管碧玲:美國深喉嚨檢舉…雙重國籍?黃健庭嚴正否認〉,《聯合晚報》(臺灣),頁A9。 易明秋(2006)。《公司治理法制論》。台北市:五南圖書。 立法院公報處(2009)。〈立法院第7屆第3會期第8次會議紀錄〉,《立法院公報》,98卷22期。 黃銘傑(2007年3月)。〈管窺力霸風暴中所暴露之公司治理與金融監理問題〉,《月旦財經法雜誌》,8期,1-28。 台北地方法院(2010年1月6日)。〈臺灣臺北地方法院民事判決 98年度重勞訴字第14號〉(九十九年一月六日裁判書)【公告】。台北市:台北地方法院。上網日期:2010年8月16日,取自http://jirs.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/ 黃銘傑(2001)。《公開發行公司法制與公司監控》。台北市:元照總經銷。 勞動基準法(2009年修正)。 勞動基準法施行細則(2009年修正)。 英文文獻 Alford, C. F. (2001). Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and Organizational Power. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. (2003). The normalization of corruption in organizations. In R.M. Kramer & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 25, pp. 1-54). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103-118. Baucus, M. S., & Baucus, D. A. (1997). Paying the piper: An empirical examination of longer-term financial consequences of illegal corporate behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 129-151. Bowie, N. (1982). Business Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Brugge, P. J. (Producer), & Mann, M. (Director). (1999). The Insider [Motion picture]. United States: Touchstone Pictures. Callahan, E. S., Dworkin, T. M., & Lewis, D. (2004). Whistle-blowing: Australian, U.K., and the U.S. approaches to disclosure in the public interest. Virginia Journal of International Law, 44, 879-912. Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2003). Raising voice, risking retaliation: Events following interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(4), 247-265. Eisler, P. (2010). Whistle-blowers’ rights get second look. USA Today. Retrieved August 19, 2010, from http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-14-whistleblowers_N.htm Elliston, F., Keenan, J., Lockhart, P., & van Schaick, J. (1985). Whistleblowing Research: Methodological and Moral Issues. New York: Praeger. Friedman, G. (2008). The deeper truth about Deep Throat. MercatorNet. Retrieved August 10, 2010, from www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_deeper_truth_about_deep_throat/ Friedman, T. L. (2005). The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Gibney, A. (Producer/Director). (2005). Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room [Motion picture]. United States: Magnolia Pictures. Glazer, M. P., & Glazer, P. M. (1989). The Whistleblowers. New York: Basic Books. Haddad, C., & Barrett, A. (2002, June 24). A whistle-blower rocks an industry. BusinessWeek, 126-130. Hansmann, H., & Kraakman, R. (2005). The end of history for corporate law. In M. J. Roe (Ed.), Corporate Governance: Political and Legal Perspectives (pp. 159-188). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Hausman, M. (Producer), & Nichols, M. (Director). (1983). Silkwood [Motion picture]. United States: 20th Century Fox. Johnson, R. A. (2003). Whistleblowing: When it works—and why. Boulder, CO: L. Rienner Publishers. Jubb, P. B. (1999). Whistleblowing: A restrictive definition and interpretation. Journal of Business Ethics, 21:1, 77-94. Lacayo, R., & Ripley, A. (2002, December 22). Persons of the Year. Time, 18-43. Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Dworkin, T. M. (2008). Whistle-blowing in Organizations. New York: Routledge. Miethe, T. D. (1999). Whistleblowing at Work: Tough Choices in Exposing Fraud, Waste, and Abuse on the Job. Boulder, CO.: Westview Press. Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1985). Organizational dissidence: The case of whistle-blowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 4, 1-16. Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1996). Whistle-blowing: Myth and reality. Journal of Management, 22(3), 507-526. Near, J. P., van Scotter, J. R., Rehg, M. T., & Miceli, M. P. (2004). Does type of wrongdoing affect the whistle-blowing process? Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(2), 219-242. Pulliam, S., & Solomon, D. (2002, October 30). Uncooking the Books: How Three Unlikely Sleuths Discovered Fraud at WorldCom. The Wall Street Journal, p. A1. Ripley, A. (2002, December 22). The Night Detective. Time, 30-35. Ripley, A., & Sieger, M. (2002, December 22). The Special Agent. Time, 22-28. Rothschild, J., & Miethe, T. D. (1999). Whistle-blower disclosures and management retaliation: The battle to control information about organizational corruption. Work and Occupations, 26(1), 107-128. Sheikh, S. (2003). A Practical Approach to Corporate Governance. West Sussex: Tottel Publishing Ltd. Slovick, M. (1996) ‘All the President’s Men’. Washingtonpost.com. Retrieved August 12, 2010, from www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/features/dcmovies/allthepresidentsmen.htm Vandekerckhove, W. (2002). Whistleblowing and Organizational Social Responsibility. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Visser, W., Matten, D., Pohl, M., & Tolhurst, N. (2007). The A to Z of Corporate Social Responsibility. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Warren, D. E. (2003). Constructive and destructive deviance in organizations. Academy of Management Reviews, 28(4), 622+. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience negative aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465-490. Weinberg, N. (2005). The Dark Side of Whistleblowing. Forbes. Retrieved August 19, 2010, from http://www.forbes.com/global/2005/0314/048.html Weinstein, D. (1979). Bureaucratic Opposition. New York: Pergamon Press. Whistle-blower. (2010). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved August 20, 2010, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whistle-blower Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. §§ 2301-2305, 7101-7135, 7511, 7701-7703, P. L. 95-454 (1978). False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733 (2009). Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A (2002). Public Interest Disclosure Act, 1998, c. 23 (Eng.) 〈The banks that robbed the world〉(2004年6月9日)。上網日期:2010年8月6日,取自BBC News網站 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3086749.stm 〈Persons of the Year 2002〉(2002年12月22日)。上網日期:2010年8月6日,取自Time網站 http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2002/ 〈Piecing Together the Reports, and Deciding What to Publish〉(2010年7月25日)。上網日期:2010年8月7日,取自The New York Times網站http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/26editors-note.html 〈Afghanistan war logs: How the Guardian got the story〉(2010年7月25日)。上網日期:2010年8月7日,取自The Guardian網站http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-war-logs-explained-video 〈Explosive Leaks Provide Image of War from Those Fighting It〉(2010年7月25日)。上網日期:2010年8月7日,取自Der Spiegel網站http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,708314,00.html 〈Pentagon Papers’ Ellsberg weighs in on WikiLeaks〉(2010年7月27日)。上網日期:2010年8月7日,取自The Capital Times網站http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/john_nichols/article_aa079d09-b29a-53b5-a106-bfa0da6e78f7.html | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/10247 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 美國發生「水門案」將近四十年後,臺灣媒體依然將揭發組織內部弊端的吹哨者稱為「深喉嚨」。許多人對吹哨者不甚了解,或許誤認為他是陰謀論中的神秘角色,或是台語俗稱的「爪耙子」。中華文化,強調個人對團體的忠誠。一位驚爆內幕、跟老闆和工作夥伴逆向而行的員工,讓人難以接受,因此受到很多誤解。
然而,臺灣社會充滿正面的吹哨者故事。光是過去五年,臺灣就有四位著名的吹哨者,揭露三家臺灣公司的內部弊端。這些公司分別是新海瓦斯公司、中華航空、和年代新聞台。四位吹哨者的故事顯示,當員工為了公眾利益和人民知的權利,爆料大組織的秘密,他們通常命運坎坷。臺灣能為他們做些什麼? 本篇報導探討臺灣吹哨者的過去、現在、和未來。透過田野調查,本報導在前半段重建四位吹哨者揭發內幕的經歷。報導的後半段,則介紹日本、英國、美國等先進國家的吹哨者保護法制,並探討公司治理的法律遵循機制,企圖讓吹哨者對社會的貢獻最大化、降低他們受到的傷害。 吹哨者面臨的種種問題,雖然不易解答,但是本篇報導希望引起相關的跨領域討論,同時在媒體論述中突破現有的負面刻板印象。吹哨者,不應被視作故弄心機的「爪耙子」。如果社會能夠保護他們,也會因此受益。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | It is truly amazing that nearly four decades after the events of the Watergate scandal, the misnomer for whistleblowers in the Taiwanese media is still the term “Deep Throat.” To the public, the whistleblower remains an elusive, unknowable figure, part conspiracy theory myth, part stereotypical tattletale. The Chinese culture places great emphasis on loyalty. The concept of a positive character who informs on his fellows can be difficult to swallow.
And yet, the Taiwanese society is not without its share of positive instances of whistleblowing. In the past five years alone, there have been four famous whistleblowers, concerned in three separate cases, involving natural gas provider Shin Hai Gas Corporation, air travel giant China Airlines, and cable news channel Era News, respectively. The stories of these whistleblowers raise an important question: what can Taiwan do for its courageous citizens who go against their own employers for the greater good? This report focuses on the past, present, and future of Taiwanese whistleblowers. By conducting field research, we attempt to present the exact sequence of events that propelled these four whistleblowers into the public spotlight. At the same time, we analyze the legal protection afforded whistleblowers in more advanced countries, such as Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States, as well as the concepts of corporate governance and legal compliance, in our search for a solution to the whistleblower dilemma. While a clear-cut solution may ultimately elude us, this report hopes to spark a series of interdisciplinary discussions on the matter of whistleblowers, and to find a proper place in the public narrative for these ordinary heroes. For too long, whistleblowers have been besmirched as opportunistic tattletales. Redressing that wrong will go a long way in helping society become more appreciative and protective of them. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-20T21:13:46Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-100-R97342021-1.pdf: 37301393 bytes, checksum: 4ff37819d8b477a01914e98cf8788262 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書………………i
誌謝………………………………ii 中文摘要…………………………iv 英文摘要…………………………vi 第一部 深度報導作品…………1 第一章 暴風雨(父親節)……4 第二章 幸運帽子 ………… 22 第三章 生與死與螺絲釘…… 40 第四章 菜市場日子(母親節)…… 59 第五章 吹哨者保障法 …………… 77 第六章 一塊石頭的犧牲…………… 97 第二部 報導企劃案……………… 113 第一章 報導背景 ………………… 115 第一節 起源與動機 ……………… 115 第二節 問題意識 ………………… 117 第三節 意義與重要性 …………… 121 第二章 文獻回顧 ………………… 124 第一節 誰是吹哨者? …………… 124 一、吹哨者的廣泛定義 …………… 126 二、何苦去當吹哨者? …………… 138 三、吹哨者的遭遇 ………………… 144 四、吹哨者的貢獻 ………………… 150 五、小結 …………………………… 153 第二節 吹哨者的法律保障 ……… 155 一、美國吹哨者法 ………………… 157 二、英國吹哨者法 ………………… 162 三、日本吹哨者法 ………………… 163 四、各國吹哨者法之整理 ………… 166 五、小結 …………………………… 172 第三節 吹哨者與公司治理 ……… 174 一、公司治理與法律遵循 ………… 176 二、法律遵循與吹哨者 …………… 178 三、企業社會責任 ………………… 183 四、吹哨者與國家競爭力 ………… 185 五、小結 …………………………… 187 第四節 對臺灣吹哨者的建議 …… 188 一、對於法律的建議 ……………… 189 二、對於組織的建議 ……………… 194 三、對於吹哨者的建議 …………… 196 第三章 採訪規劃 ………………… 199 第一節 報導內容與架構 ………… 199 一、報導層面 ……………………… 200 二、報導架構 ……………………… 202 第二節 資料來源 ………………… 205 第三節 預計的困難 ……………… 207 第四節 預計的進度 ……………… 209 第四章 參考書目 ………………… 211 第三部 報導後記 ………………… 217 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 請別叫我「爪耙子」:臺灣吹哨者的故事 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Whistleblower or Tattletale: The Case for Ordinary Heroes | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 99-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.coadvisor | 何榮幸 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 洪貞玲,劉昌德 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 吹哨者,公益通報,沙賓法,公司治理,法律遵循, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Whistleblower,Public Interest Disclosure,The Sarbanes-Oxley Act,Corporate Governance,Legal Compliance, | en |
dc.relation.page | 227 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2011-02-10 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 新聞研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 新聞研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-100-1.pdf | 36.43 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。