The Council of Grand Justices last Friday declared the National Communications Commission (NCC) unconstitutional, citing Article 4 of the Organic Law of the National Communications Commission (
Article 4 stipulates that commission members be selected according to the ratio of seats held by each political party in the legislature. While the article says that the commission should be composed of 13 members with either an academic background or practical experience in the fields of telecommunications, information technology, broadcasting, law, finance and economics, there are no restrictions regarding party affiliation.
Despite last Friday's ruling, the commission's nine remaining members decided on Monday to stay in office until Jan. 31, 2008, saying that if they quit now "it would be like leaving the engine of the NCC revving in neutral."
Commission Chairman Su Yeong-ching (
When the Cabinet first appealed the matter to the Council of Grand Justices, the commission members said they would resign if the justices ruled the agency unconstitutional. Why don't they have the backbone now to stick to that pledge? It was apparent from the very beginning that political interests would inevitably creep into the commission given the way it was set up.
Has the quality of the media environment or the quality of reporting improved since the commission commenced operations?
Instead, the only notable "accomplishment" of the commission to date was its speedy action against pirate radio stations in southern Taiwan early last month, after these stations reportedly aired malicious remarks against Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
Did the commission, however, say a word when media outlets reported what could be construed as threatening comments by Ma against President Chen Shui-bian (
The grand justices said that there should be a "grace period" before the commission is dissolved. This will pacify those who argue that the telecommunications and broadcasting industries would have no one to monitor them. But the chances are slim that the legislature will be able to revise the law and provide an oversight agency in a timely and rational manner, given the reaction of the KMT caucus to Monday's ruling.
The KMT caucus condemned Minister Without Portfolio Hsu Chih-hsiung (
In a normal democracy, the legislature would, upon being told by the nation's highest constitutional court that one of its laws was in error, quickly act to review and revise that regulation.
Taiwan's democracy is anything but normal and it would appear that the public has months of childish behavior from opposition parties to look forward to, while the NCC drifts in limbo until the current terms of the nation's lawmakers end in January 2008.
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