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.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS