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
US president-elect Donald Trump continues to make nominations for his Cabinet and US agencies, with most of his picks being staunchly against Beijing. For US ambassador to China, Trump has tapped former US senator David Perdue. This appointment makes it crystal clear that Trump has no intention of letting China continue to steal from the US while infiltrating it in a surreptitious quasi-war, harming world peace and stability. Originally earning a name for himself in the business world, Perdue made his start with Chinese supply chains as a manager for several US firms. He later served as the CEO of Reebok and
Chinese Ministry of National Defense spokesman Wu Qian (吳謙) announced at a news conference that General Miao Hua (苗華) — director of the Political Work Department of the Central Military Commission — has been suspended from his duties pending an investigation of serious disciplinary breaches. Miao’s role within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) affects not only its loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), but also ideological control. This reflects the PLA’s complex internal power struggles, as well as its long-existing structural problems. Since its establishment, the PLA has emphasized that “the party commands the gun,” and that the military is
US president-elect Donald Trump in an interview with NBC News on Monday said he would “never say” if the US is committed to defending Taiwan against China. Trump said he would “prefer” that China does not attempt to invade Taiwan, and that he has a “very good relationship” with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Before committing US troops to defending Taiwan he would “have to negotiate things,” he said. This is a departure from the stance of incumbent US President Joe Biden, who on several occasions expressed resolutely that he would commit US troops in the event of a conflict in
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
RSS