A local broadcaster is being investigated for reportedly allowing a correspondent from China’s Xinhua news agency to give it instructions about its programming, the National Communications Commission said on Tuesday.
In exchange for commercial interests in China, the broadcaster allowed Xinhua reporter Zhao Bo (趙博) to set program topics, script dialogue and supervise filming, a source told the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister paper), adding that other broadcasters were offered the same deal, but rejected it.
Obviously, it comes as no surprise that China is attempting to infiltrate the media in Taiwan. It is good that other broadcasters had the integrity to reject this offer, but the channel that allegedly accepted it must be made an example of. Under articles 22 and 27 of the Satellite Broadcasting Act (衛星廣播電視法), the channel could face a fine of NT$400,000 to NT$2 million (US$12,327 to US$61,633), and may be ordered to suspend broadcasting or have their license revoked.
A fine is unlikely to be a deterrent to would-be offenders if business opportunities in China or bribes from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) would exceed the maximum fine — which is very likely, so license revocation should be a must for any broadcaster found collaborating with the CCP. At the same time, anyone at the broadcaster involved in the offense should have their finances scrutinized, and be prohibited from ever owning, operating, investing in or working for any media outlet in Taiwan again.
China is well aware that it lacks the capability to invade Taiwan at present. It is also highly unlikely to impose a military blockade around Taiwan, which could lead to US military involvement.
Even a quarantine is unlikely according to experts who recently commented on the matter. Carl Schuster, former director of operations at the US Pacific Command’s Joint Intelligence Center, told CNN that a quarantine would be too costly and risky for China.
Given its limited options to force unification on Taiwan, China is likely to continue pressuring Taiwan through a combination of “gray zone” tactics, manipulation of Taiwan’s legislature and “united front” efforts such as cognitive warfare waged on social media by infiltrating schools and organizations in Taiwan. Taiwan must swiftly and resolutely respond to any sign of these efforts and must not allow Taiwanese collaborators to act with impunity.
It is odd that correspondents from Chinese state-run media would be permitted to operate in Taiwan, given that the Taiwanese government is well aware of the CCP’s cognitive warfare efforts against it.
In the same vein, several legislators from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) reportedly are known to have contact with CCP officials, and it has been alleged that some legislators act under instructions from the CCP. Given such suspicions, it makes little sense that active legislators in Taiwan should be permitted to travel to China.
The threats directed against Taiwan and its people continue to worsen under the administration of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), with the CCP most recently threatening those in favor of Taiwan’s independence with the death penalty.
It is time that Taiwan’s government begins placing restrictions on exchanges with China. Failure to do so puts Taiwanese at risk of losing their freedoms and way of life.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS