Week by week, the National Communications Commission (NCC) is vindicating fears that its partisan membership would pay dividends for pan-blue-camp figures with media interests.
In recent months the NCC has made an ass of itself by lecturing or fining local and international media outlets on innocuous content errors. More than this, however, the NCC's membership has made it clear that it intends to micromanage media affairs in this country in a way that makes the Government Information Office's paternalistic style appear enlightened.
Now, the NCC has picked a genuinely political fight with the rest of the executive by approving the sale of the Broadcasting Corporation of China (BCC) to four "front companies" -- in the words of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) critics -- allegedly owned by Jaw Shaw-kong (
Yesterday it was revealed that the NCC wrote to the National Security Bureau and other government agencies asking for analyses of the ramifications of the sale on national security. The NCC, it seems, would like other government agencies to do its work for it. The bureau and the other agencies declined, which is hardly surprising.
The bigger picture needs to be spelt out. We are not only criticizing individual decisions by the NCC or regressive elements in the pan-blue camp -- though there is certainly no shortage of them -- but arguing that the regulator for media and telecommunications should be distanced from the blue-green political divide as far as possible, and that it stop meddling in problems that are better addressed by the industry and the feedback of ordinary people.
Instead, we have a situation in which the sale of media properties to anyone with political connections results in the entire membership of the NCC suffering a conflict of interest.
In the unlikely event that the DPP wins a majority of seats in the next legislature, the NCC as it stands would then become a plaything for the pan-green camp. This would only continue to hurt the interests of the general public.
The NCC is, in effect, a partisan and punitive arm of the legislature rather than a body of independent experts appointed by the executive. It resembles nothing more than the para-legal kangaroo courts that "investigated" the assassination attempt on President Chen Shui-bian (
And nothing illustrates the infantile potential of this partisan morass better than the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) -- the current NCC membership's benefactor -- yesterday threatening to sue the government for hurting the NCC members' feelings.
When the Council of Grand Justices declared the NCC unconstitutional over its partisan membership selection process in July last year, the justices also confusingly gave the NCC a reprieve, allowing the body to continue functioning until the end of this year, by which time the law is supposed to be amended to meet the court's requirements.
That reprieve remains one of the council's strangest decisions in recent years, and its legacy may well be a round of wasteful litigation within the executive.
But if this farce alerts voters and more sensible politicians to the folly that comes with the creation of politically partisan government agencies, then some good may yet come of it.
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS