On June 16, the legislature’s Education and Culture Committee decided to eliminate Article 14, Section 1 of the Radio and Television Act (廣播電視法), abolishing the Act Governing the Broadcasting Development Fund (廣播電視事業發展基金條例). This in turn might mean the liquidation of the Broadcasting Development Fund (BDF). While some may consider this a minor issue, the legislature has taken a first step in the right direction.
A decision must be made on the BDF, and although the Cabinet has yet to turn its attention to the issue, there is no reason why the legislature shouldn’t take the initiative.
This must be followed by a second and even more important step, which is related to one of the reasons for doing away with the act. The legislature says the BDF has fulfilled its mission and no longer acts according to the original purpose of the law. The truth is, however, that since its establishment more than 20 years ago, the fund has never been able to fulfill its mission. This is the reason the legislature should go further.
In the 1980s, the original three TV channels and the Broadcasting Corporation of China (BCC) monopolized almost all radio and TV resources. As long as the government released some of the profits from this monopoly and produced some high-quality programming, it could retain these communication channels.
But too many unprofessional considerations went into the production of programs sponsored by the BDF and every TV station was forced to broadcast the shows, forcing the bulk of viewers to tune in to pirate TV stations.
As a consequence, the old three stations suffered and satellite TV reaped the benefits. For instance, TVBS began broadcasting a 9pm political talk show because at that time, the old three stations were broadcasting the programming they were told to broadcast, rather than what the public wanted to see.
This is why the fund has been unable to fulfill the mission it is legally charged with. In comparison, Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK) is highly trusted by the Hong Kong public and still broadcasts its programs on Hong Kong’s TV stations. Its programming has a large audience and is well appreciated. Although Taiwan uses a similar model, its achievements are shamefully limited. With a budget of about NT$1 billion (US$33 million), RTHK only produces 15 hours of programming per week, but it is broadcast by local cable TV stations that enjoy an 80 percent market share. In addition, RTHK has an annual budget of more than NT$1 billion to produce programming for seven radio channels.
Like Hong Kong, Taiwan should provide the public with credible and quality radio and TV programming that will attract a large audience on a daily basis. At the same time, we are faced with an opportunity, or maybe a challenge: If cross-strait talks were also to include TV, then if China’s CCTV channel 4 or 9, or other channels, could be broadcast on a fixed frequency and had to be carried on local Taiwanese TV, what programs would Taiwan choose for Chinese TV to carry?
Whether to compensate for the neglected TV and radio rights of the public over the past 20 years or to welcome the prospect of cross-strait TV and film exchanges, we need a larger production center for producing TV and radio programming, and at the same time we must ensure that programming produced by that center is effectively broadcast. From this perspective, the legislature’s abolishing the legal basis for the BDF can be seen as a seed which may sprout and create opportunities for an even larger fund for producing TV programs.
The next problem we have to face is who has the power and the responsibility and is best qualified to nurture this new baby? Cable TV or commercial terrestrial TV? The Taiwan Broadcasting System or the Satellite Television Broadcasting Association? Or some kind of alliance between these organizations after they have been revised? Such technical issues are not hard to solve. Whether the legislature comes up with a solution after researching it, or if it urges the Cabinet to complete the task, it’s all for good for the public and cross-strait TV culture exchanges.
Feng Chien-san is a professor of journalism at National Cheng Chi University.
TRANSLATED BY ANNA STIGGELBOUT AND TED YANG
Two weeks ago, Malaysian actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) raised hackles in Taiwan by posting to her 2.6 million Instagram followers that she was visiting “Taipei, China.” Yeoh’s post continues a long-standing trend of Chinese propaganda that spreads disinformation about Taiwan’s political status and geography, aimed at deceiving the world into supporting its illegitimate claims to Taiwan, which is not and has never been part of China. Taiwan must respond to this blatant act of cognitive warfare. Failure to respond merely cedes ground to China to continue its efforts to conquer Taiwan in the global consciousness to justify an invasion. Taiwan’s government
This month’s news that Taiwan ranks as Asia’s happiest place according to this year’s World Happiness Report deserves both celebration and reflection. Moving up from 31st to 27th globally and surpassing Singapore as Asia’s happiness leader is gratifying, but the true significance lies deeper than these statistics. As a society at the crossroads of Eastern tradition and Western influence, Taiwan embodies a distinctive approach to happiness worth examining more closely. The report highlights Taiwan’s exceptional habit of sharing meals — 10.1 shared meals out of 14 weekly opportunities, ranking eighth globally. This practice is not merely about food, but represents something more
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
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
RSS