Media outlets are often subject to control by authoritarian governments or political parties because they able to reach out to every corner of a society, regardless of geographical boundaries.
Whoever controls the media has the power to control the public discourse and to bend the public’s perception of certain issues to the controller’s advantage.
For decades, prior to the launch of the Public Television Service (PTS) on July 1, 1998, the nation’s wireless broadcasters had been subject to the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) grip, serving nothing but political purposes instead of fulfilling their duty to provide a politics-blind public forum for information.
Given this history, it is vital to ensure that the PTS can operate independently, without any political or commercial maneuvering, as is stipulated by the Public Television Act (公共電視法), because the public needs an objective voice no matter how impossible this dream may sound.
However, it’s easy to be pessimistic about the future of the PTS after another controversial reshuffle of its management, which could be the prelude to the demise of the 12-year-old, publically owned institution.
Although the Government Information Office (GIO) said that it has never interfered in the PTS’ operations or personnel matters, the trail of political maneuvering is evident — and not very subtle either.
In December 2008, the legislature’s Education and Culture Committee passed a resolution proposed by KMT caucus whip Lin Yi-shih (林益世) to freeze the PTS’ budget for last year unless the broadcaster gained approval from the GIO for every item on its budget request.
In June last year, the legislature passed an amendment to the act to enlarge the PTS’ board of directors, after which the GIO, which funds the PTS, immediately appointed eight new directors.
Three months later, the GIO filed a lawsuit against six of the 11 remaining directors, accusing them of illegally holding meetings without the necessary two-thirds attendance.
The Control Yuan, at the end of last year, censured the GIO for increasing the number of board members, a move that had been criticized as an attempt to expand the government’s control of the broadcaster.
Control Yuan member Frank Wu (吳豐山), who proposed a probe of the appointments, recently said the GIO had replied to the censure on three occasions, but never fully explained how the new appointees were chosen.
Adding to the controversy was last month’s dismissal of PTS Foundation president and chief executive Sylvia Feng (馮賢賢), who had worked for the station for 12 years, on grounds of incompetence by acting PTS chairman and KMT supporter Chen Sheng-fu (陳勝福). This was while, under Feng’s leadership, funds raised by the PTS skyrocketed to close to NT$10 million (US$321,000) in the second half of last year and the PTS’ viewership rate had grown from 0.03 percent in 1998 to 0.18 percent last year.
The KMT government made every effort to deny that it had played a role in the controversies, but it never responded to speculation that the PTS’ independence had been compromised nor proposed measures to protect the institution’s independence.
This blatant interference deserves a full-scale Control Yuan investigation. One can’t help but wonder what the government watchdog will find if it looks into every breadcrumb closely and follows the trail home.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS