I've been following the news about TVBS news and Taiwan's recent media situation. Although some opinions are highly questionable, given the nature of Taiwan's (and perhaps most liberal democracies) poor journalistic performance in terms of indiscriminate reporting and oversimplified analyses, I wish to bring attention to several points.
First, as is true with any other jurisdiction, Taiwan has a unique socio-political background. Unlike the US, where corporate dominance over media outlets controls the main thrust of discussion on media reform, Taiwan is liberal and open in terms of private ownership of the media. In fact, most of the population receives their news via privately owned media.
While the public in the US has begun to realize and take action against how private media manipulates or even "manufactures consent," the Taiwanese public is not as aware of such practices as their US counterparts, and even welcomes the freedom of press in its most extreme form, despite the corporate bias of most news sources.
Furthermore, Taiwanese politics is not divided into conservative and progressive camps. According to the article "What Taiwan wants" in last year's March issue of Asia Times magazine, the big question for Taiwan is the nationalistic sentiment towards Taiwan and/or China. The media present themes that can alter or mobilize certain nationalistic sentiments.
Given the fact that China is still hostile and aggressive towards the Taiwanese desire for self-determination, this situation cannot -- and should not -- be simplified as a simple domestic political standoff, or a "witch hunt" of the dissidents.
The historical and political background needs to be thoroughly investigated before any viable observations can be made. It is academically dangerous to decontextualize any issues in Taiwan, because in many cases they are as complicated as they are sensitive.
Second, according to the reports, one argument has been that if the government does shut down TVBS, Taiwan would be no different from China in terms of the freedom of press.
I would argue that it is already difficult for a nascent democracy like Taiwan to maintain its sovereignty and preserve a pluralistic public opinion over the destiny of the country's future in the face of the pro-unification, militant voice of the People's Republic of China (PRC).
The issue at hand is not whether the freedom of press in Taiwan should be carefully nurtured and protected -- ? it should. The issue is this: what must be done to ensure an independent press, when there is an authoritarian and aggressive regime (the PRC) that threatens press freedom in Taiwan to achieve its own end? It is obvious that Beijing has launched a propaganda as well as an economic war machine to threaten Taiwan's democracy on all fronts.
Third, the issue is strictly a legal matter. Anyone can tell that the Democratic Progressive Party has taken an unwise political step at the wrong time. It brought up the issue of foreign shareholding in private media (TVBS) right after being grilled on political scandals by that very same media group.
However, despite the poor political tactics, it is true that the citizenship of the majority of TVBS' shareholders is, to put it delicately, questionable.
Article 10, Chapter 1 of the Satellite Broadcasting Law (衛星廣播電視法) explicitly states: "The total shares of a satellite broadcasting business directly held by foreign shareholders shall be less than 50 percent of the total shares issued by the said business."
Therefore, this issue ought to be reviewed and discussed, as we are believers of liberal democracy and freedom of speech.
It is a crucial fact that the shareholding body of TVBS is possibly subject to the control of Beijing, which has been a verbal, political, economic and military aggressor toward Taiwan. Would the US public, let alone the Bush administration, allow the subjects of its chief military antagonist to control the means of information inside the US?
Lastly, although President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) has vowed not to shut down any media outlet during his tenure, it does not detract from the fact that Taiwan has often been the victim of over-simplification by international observers, who examine Taiwan's current state of affairs divorced from its socio-historical context.
Taiwan faces multifaceted threats to freedom and democracy from a bullying neighbor, and the means to information should not be controlled or manipulated by foreigners, especially those with ties to the antagonist state.
Chang Jiho
Taipei
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS