The internal dispute over Public Television Service’s (PTS) board of directors has developed into a legal battle between PTS chairman Cheng Tung-liao (鄭同僚) and some of the board members, hurting PTS’ development. However, if we could use this opportunity to develop a public assessment system to evaluate the management’s performance, then internal operations and personnel changes could be carried out professionally and in the public interest.
PTS could use the crisis as a turning point to eliminate political interference and move toward independence and professionalism.
Hence, we call on Cheng and the board of directors to drop the lawsuit and publicly explain the conflict. More importantly, a fair and professional evaluation of the management team must be conducted and a decision as to who should stay must be made based on public assessment.
The problem could be resolved by amending the Public Television Act (公共電視法) following a review of the systemic shortcomings that the dispute has revealed.
As the authority in charge, the Government Information Office (GIO) should take full responsibility for the political deadlock facing the PTS board and push for a prompt legal amendment based on changes drafted by PTS.
Despite the link between PTS and politics, PTS operations do not have to be influenced by politics. By distinguishing between legal rights and responsibilities, demanding accountability from PTS’ operator and respecting the group’s autonomy from politicians, we should be able to build a system that serves the public interest rather than political parties.
In terms of the current conflict, we feel the following problems are systemic and should be addressed without delay.
First, the GIO has a responsibility to explain why it is not illegal to add more board members. Additional board members should be nominated by the Cabinet and approved by the legislature.
Officially appointed board members who have been involved in planning and management at PTS should not be held responsible for administrative errors, nor should they be deprived of their right to comment on and assess the issues affecting PTS.
Second, can the chairman of the board and top management be replaced?
The Act says that the term for board members is three years and the chairman is elected among members of the board. It also says that the general manager should be nominated by the chairman and approved by two-thirds of the board and that the general manager should be directed and monitored by the board.
As the highest supervisory unit, the board of directors has the power to re-elect the chairman and replace the general manager. However, to ensure staff stability and operational efficiency, PTS should avoid a political tug-of-war over votes. What is needed is rational discussion and assessment of who is appropriate for the management team.
Third, we must look at the procedures and legal basis for replacing the chairman of the board and top management. It is the duty of the chairman and the general manager to manage PTS, but the Act only regulates the replacement of the general manager and makes no mention of the re-election of the chairman. This is what has caused the current difficulties.
To balance their respective duties and powers and avoid political wrangling, benchmarks must be developed to assess and monitor the performance of the chairman and general manager’s team. In addition to assessing employee satisfaction with the team, PTS has put a lot of effort into establishing public assessment benchmarks in recent years. It is now crucial that PTS employ fair assessment standards to evaluate the management team and decide whether to keep the chairman and general manager.
Finally, the Cabinet and the legislature, which were responsible for exacerbating the conflict, should ask themselves whether they did anything to help PTS apart from adding board members and changing the structure of its board.
The Act must be amended if the problems mentioned here are to be solved.
Hung Chen-ling is an associate professor at National Taiwan University’s Graduate Institute of Journalism; Chad Liu is an associate professor at National Chengchi University’s Department of Journalism.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG AND DREW CAMERON
Taiwan is a small, humble place. There is no Eiffel Tower, no pyramids — no singular attraction that draws the world’s attention. If it makes headlines, it is because China wants to invade. Yet, those who find their way here by some twist of fate often fall in love. If you ask them why, some cite numbers showing it is one of the freest and safest countries in the world. Others talk about something harder to name: The quiet order of queues, the shared umbrellas for anyone caught in the rain, the way people stand so elderly riders can sit, the
Taiwan’s fall would be “a disaster for American interests,” US President Donald Trump’s nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy Elbridge Colby said at his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday last week, as he warned of the “dramatic deterioration of military balance” in the western Pacific. The Republic of China (Taiwan) is indeed facing a unique and acute threat from the Chinese Communist Party’s rising military adventurism, which is why Taiwan has been bolstering its defenses. As US Senator Tom Cotton rightly pointed out in the same hearing, “[although] Taiwan’s defense spending is still inadequate ... [it] has been trending upwards
Small and medium enterprises make up the backbone of Taiwan’s economy, yet large corporations such as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) play a crucial role in shaping its industrial structure, economic development and global standing. The company reported a record net profit of NT$374.68 billion (US$11.41 billion) for the fourth quarter last year, a 57 percent year-on-year increase, with revenue reaching NT$868.46 billion, a 39 percent increase. Taiwan’s GDP last year was about NT$24.62 trillion, according to the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, meaning TSMC’s quarterly revenue alone accounted for about 3.5 percent of Taiwan’s GDP last year, with the company’s
In an eloquently written piece published on Sunday, French-Taiwanese education and policy consultant Ninon Godefroy presents an interesting take on the Taiwanese character, as viewed from the eyes of an — at least partial — outsider. She muses that the non-assuming and quiet efficiency of a particularly Taiwanese approach to life and work is behind the global success stories of two very different Taiwanese institutions: Din Tai Fung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). Godefroy said that it is this “humble” approach that endears the nation to visitors, over and above any big ticket attractions that other countries may have
RSS