Dec. 10 marked the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 of which reads: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
It is ironic that the Public Television Service Foundation (PTS), a platform for public dialog and debate, is relying on commercials placed by supporters to argue its case. The purpose is to argue that the station, which is already having difficulties, should not be further stifled by new regulations. They call on the legislature to release NT$450 million (US$14 million) from the station’s budget that has been frozen for nearly a year.
PTS also said that while three public television channels — Taiwan Indigenous Television, Taiwan Hakka Television and Taiwan Macroview Television — serve people for whom, respectively, the Council of Indigenous Peoples, the Council for Hakka Affairs and the Overseas Compatriot Affairs Commission are responsible, these government departments should allow the stations to maintain responsibility for programming and not, as is being proposed, direct their day-to-day affairs.
PTS was established a decade ago, and the Taiwan Broadcasting System (TBS), which includes the four aforementioned networks plus the Chinese Television System (CTS), was set up a little over two years ago. The logic in their first major public dialog with the legislature would not be contested in any mature democracy: Yes, political intervention is needed to establish a public media network, but political forces should not direct their day-to-day affairs or programming.
Only at the initial stage does a government need to exercise judgment in selecting a management team with impeccable qualifications. Thereafter it should hand over to those professionals full responsibility for running the organization.
There may be questions as to whether the PTS management team is the most competent possible, but there is also a greater and more urgent matter to which government officials and legislators should give serious attention — the draft Public Service Broadcasting and Television Act proposed by the CTS employees’ union.
Since the passage of the Public Television Service Act (公共電視法), public broadcasting has evolved from one channel — PTS — into five analog channels and a number of digital services, but changes in funding for these services now mean that the law no longer provides sufficient coverage or guidance.
Taiwan also has a number of government-run radio stations with many years’ standing. It is necessary to amend the law or introduce a new one to cover the role that these play and how they are managed.
During its eight years in power, the Democratic Progressive Party administration showed little concern for the matter. However, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government cannot just blame the previous regime for this state of affairs. Otherwise, the transfer of power will have been pointless, and politicians will lose the chance to activate and lead public opinion.
Taiwan’s media environment has been declining for many years. “Diversity” here amounts to interest groups seeking outlets for expression according to their commercial interests. All the more need, then, for public media to rectify the situation via moderation and balance.
Now that relations across the Taiwan Strait are growing closer, politicians should be doing all they can to ensure that Taiwan’s experience will be a positive model for China and Chinese everywhere.
Feng Chien-san is a professor in the Department of Journalism at National Chengchi University.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then