Mon, Jun 04, 2012 page3

• INTERVIEW: Three NCC members discuss Want Want merger bid

  The National Communications Commission’s (NCC) review of Want Want China Times Group’s bid to acquire cable TV services owned by China Network Systems (CNS) continues to cause controversy. In a recent interview, ‘Liberty Times’ (the ‘Taipei Times’ sister paper) staff reporters Lan Tsu-wei, Jennifer Huang and Liu Li-jen discussed the growing problems of media concentration and personalization of criticism highlighted by the case with NCC members Chen Jeng-chang, Weng Hsiao-ling and Chung Chi-hui. This is part one of a two-part interview.

  • • 
    • 
    • 

  Liberty Times (LT): The Want Want-CNS deal is a merger bid worth about NT$70 billion [US$2.22 billion] and has highlighted the controversies associated with cross-media mergers and acquisitions, and media monopolization. Your decisions to withdraw from the review of the case because of accusations made by the [Chinese-language] ‘China Times’ have been praised as much as criticized. How do you feel about this?

  Chen Jeng-chang (陳正倉): Having withdrawn from the case, I am supposed to refrain from commenting on the matter, but since the proposed bill is still under procedural review and not substantive review, I feel the need to provide clarification on the many public statements and misconceptions [pertaining to the case.]

  We were all puzzled when the China Times made its accusations. At the time, the Want Want Group intended to take over both China Television Co and CtiTV and its proposal was unanimously approved by all seven NCC members, who also agreed to set seven conditions — including having the two TV stations establish independent teams — for the group to meet. However, of the seven NCC members, we were the only three to be targeted by the China Times, which groundlessly accused us of “illegal abuse of power” and “malfeasance.”

  

  National Communications Commission members Chen Jeng-chang, left, Chung Chi-hui, center, and Weng Hsiao-ling talk with reporters on May 25.

  Photo: Liu Hsin-de, Taipei Times

  The takeover bid was approved with reservations based on the principles of opinion diversification and liberalization, and [because we believed that] mandating a news station and a business news station to found their own independent teams was a fairly reasonable request.

  [Under normal circumstances,] operators who disagree [with administrative resolutions] are entitled to file an appeal, as allowed by the Administrative Appeal Act (行政訴願法), but the Want Want China Times Group chose to resort instead to using its media subsidiaries to pressure individual commissioners with lengthy critiques.

  If we were to review the Want Want-CNS deal under such circumstances, [our] disapproval of the case could be misinterpreted as an act of retaliation, while an approval could also be seen as the result of succumbing to pressure. In this regard and driven by our desire to uphold the highest ethical standards, we resolved to withdraw from the case.

  In order to ensure that the review could still be carried out properly by the remaining four NCC members, we closely studied the National Communications Commission Organic Law (國家通訊傳播委員會組織法) before opting to withdraw. [We found that] in practice, several past cases were actually reviewed and ratified by a group of four NCC members through closed-door meetings. Therefore, anyone concerned about the Want Want-CNS case could just look into those cases to gain a more thorough understanding.

  Weng Hsiao-ling (翁曉玲): Our withdrawal from the Want Want-CNS case was undertaken after thorough deliberation and aimed at ensuring an environment whereby the remainign four commissioners could review the case beyond reproach. Unfortunately, the Want Want Group continued to accuse us of abusing our power and even mobilized legislators to criticize us and the commission as a whole.

  Want Want Group chairman Tsai Eng-meng (蔡衍明) had said in a public hearing on the case that “his attendance was a fight to defend his dignity.” However, don’t the NCC commissioners need to defend theirs?

  With regard to the false accusations by the Want Want Group’s media subsidiaries, I maintained that [we should] press charges both to safeguard the commission’s reputation and to restrain the media from employing public apparatus as a tool to defame administrative agencies.

  However, that proposal was rejected by the NCC’s then--chairman, who not only blocked our attempts to issue a press release on the -matter, but also handled the issue as if it was of interest to only some NCC members. Only then did I realize “how small an NCC member was” and I regret that the commission was not willing to stand up and defend its own reputation.

  LT: Following your withdrawal from the case, the public has voiced concerns that the remaining four NCC members may choose to wrap up the review as quickly as possible. How can NCC members still fulfill their duties if most of them withdraw from pending cases due to name-calling, and when those under review can force members to recuse themselves simply by public name calling?

  Weng: The Want Want-CNS case has given rise to several controversies, ignited a media battle between the Want Want China Times Group’s subsidiaries, such as the China Times, CTiTV and the -[Chinese-language] Apple Daily, and highlighted the long-standing problem of media concentration.

  However, such a form of targeted defamation may not happen again, since not all media can be as overweening and monopolize the market to the same extent.

  Chung Chi-hui (鐘起惠): Many countries have long paid close attention to the issue of media concentration as exemplified by the Want Want-CNS deal, yet Taiwan has yet to properly regulate the issue.

  The same applies to cross--media mergers, which we have investigated and researched at length since joining the NCC four years ago.

  We have repeatedly called for a draft version of a Cross-Media Merger Act (跨媒體法) to deal with the matter, but [we have yet to see] the NCC declaring its stance on such a key media-related issue. In this regard, both the NCC chairman and the NCC’s administrative system should be held accountable in light of recent accusations from academics, who have said the commission has been derelict in the execution of its duties.

  LT: Will the review of the Want Want-CNS deal be completed before the end of the current term [in which current NCC members are scheduled to step down at the end of next month]?

  Chen: I presided over a proposed bill that involved the bid to acquire cable TV provider Kbro Co by Fubon Financial chairman Daniel Tsai (蔡明忠) through a separate company [he established] called Da-fu Media. Examination of the case lasted two years because it involved the political funds of the Taipei City Government, [one of the major shareholders in Fubon.]

  Despite giving a green light to the acquisition, we set several pioneering conditions [for Da-fu Media] — such as requiring it to operate its channels in a fair and equitable manner and to submit a timetable for its promotion of digital convergence, which aimed to make up for the deficiencies of existing laws and bring about policy innovation.

  The “Da-fu case” could actually serve as a good point of reference for the Want Want-CNS deal, because if media concentration is an issue of great concern to all sectors of society, the commission should make an attempt to lower [the level of its] media monopoly [as we did on the Da-fu case.] However, the other four NCC members have yet to resume their review of the [Want Want-CNS] case, which [we assume] could be the result of certain concerns, or even worse — because of “certain people.”

  Chung: As the NCC is an independent government agency, its members should be more committed to their roles. The four NCC members should have put forth more explicit regulations and standards to handle problems relating to media monopolies and cross-media mergers, but instead they have delayed reviewing the case.

  The same applies to the draft version of the Cross-Media Merger Act, which should have been promulgated long ago, but no progress has been made yet.

  Translated by Stacy Hsu, staff writer

  Part two of this interview will be published tomorrow.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Ministry lifts overseas limits on TSMC

  • 2

    New missiles to be deployed in north

  • 3

    Chinese spy prosecutions tripled in four years

  • 4

    TSMC has begun 4-nm chip production in US, official says

  • 5

    Snowfall a reminder of former ski resort on Hehuanshan