The review committee of the National Communications Commission (NCC) held its public hearings for nominees between Dec. 9 and Dec. 11. As one of the 11 committee members, I witnessed the pan-blue camp's maneuvers. The pro-blue reviewers, who tried to assert their professionalism during the review process, talked the talk, but did not walk the walk.
According to the Organic Law of the National Communications Commission (國家通訊傳播委員會組織法), which was signed into law by President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) on Nov. 9, the NCC will take over from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and the Government Information Office as the authority in charge of issuing or renewing media licenses, enacting media regulations and meting out punishment.
Despite the significance of the NCC's establishment, the local media did not pay much attention to the three-day review process. Perhaps it was a result of the structure of the review committee, which was made up of six pro-blue and five pro-green reviewers. Since the law states that a nominee needs just more than half of the votes in the second round of the review process, it became a power struggle among the political parties. Did the media pay so little attention to the review process because it was superficial?
In fact, some reviewers had already sent questions to the nominees and received written answers beforehand. Also, the review process was open to the public and broadcast online in real time. It was transparent, rational and serious.
Three consensuses were reached during the process. First, the excessive number of TV news stations and their pursuit of ratings have often damaged quality. Second, the NCC is an independent body -- unlike the Fair Trade Commission, the NCC members do not have to attend meetings of the Executive Yuan. Third, the digital gap should be narrowed to bridge the gap between different social classes as well as urban and rural areas.
Still, in terms of unlicensed radio stations, the pan-blue camp's reviewers were mostly in favor of a crackdown disregarding historical factors and realistic obstacles, and I repeatedly opposed this. There were also several debates on the restriction against foreign capital in the media, and most reviewers agreed that it is acceptable to limit foreign investment on scarce wireless frequencies and telecommunication networks for the sake of national security, public order and local culture.
But when the reviewers cast their ballots, the pan-blue camp's reviewers had reached an agreement in advance to vote for just nine nominees, while the pan-green camp's reviewers kindly voted for 13 nominees. As a result, almost all the pan-blue camp's nominees passed the threshold in the first round, except for Lee Tzu-yuan (李祖源), former general manager of the Broadcasting Corp of China, who had been nominated by the People First Party (PFP). National Chiao Tung University professor Lin Yi-bing (林一平) and National Chengchi University professor Liu Zong-de (劉宗德) even got the committee's full support by winning 11 votes each.
As for the pan-green camp's nominees, National Dong Hwa University professor Howard Shyr (石世豪) and National Chengchi University professor Weng Shieu-chi (翁秀琪) passed by winning eight and seven votes respectively. Nominees who needed to win more than half the votes in the second round had to rely on the mercy of the pan-blue camp's reviewers.
After witnessing this unpleasant voting process, I quickly withdrew and left the battlefield.
Chen I-shen is an associate researcher in the Institute of Modern History at Academia Sinica and the deputy chairman of the Northern Society.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS