On Tuesday, DPP Legislator Cheng Kuo-chung (鄭國忠) made an alarming revelation during an interpellation in the Legislative Yuan -- as many as 17 media in Taiwan are suspected of receiving funding from China. This is indeed a very sticky problem for the government. While intangible Chinese infiltration of this sort is probably more lethal for Taiwan in the long run than the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic, the government has even fewer means available to combat this emerging "epidemic" within the media.
The undesirability, to say the least, of having media financed with Chinese capital goes without saying. Taiwanese society is sorely lacking in terms of Taiwan-centered perception as it is. After the end of the martial law era, "nativized consciousness" at last began to emerge only in the last few years. Pro-unification media have therefore been having an extremely difficulty time, since their China-centered views appeal only to a shrinking minority. In due course, if market competition is allowed to do its business, their market share would be reduced to a miniscule piece of the pie.
In a critical moment like this, the infusion of Chinese capital is like an oasis in the desert. For obvious reasons, media that are pro-independence or are deemed as having nativized stances are not going to be on Beijing's Santa Clause list of good kids. Media backed by Chinese capital will be able to stay in the market and perhaps even outlast those on the other side of the political spectrum. Even more importantly, they will be able to continue to influence and shape public views and perceptions. All this will be highly counterproductive to the newly blossoming "nativized consciousness."
Unfortunately, the government seems to have its hands tied with respect to this problem. Frankly speaking, there is very little it can do to a problem with very serious consequences. While according to the Statute Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan and Mainland Areas (
The government additionally faces two highly sensitive dilemmas in dealing with this difficult situation. It must avoid any allegations or suspicions of trampling on the "freedom of the press" and the "freedom to do business." Only a few days ago, the Government Information Office incited an uproar with its plan to contract an independent research group to study the "business management" of the media industry. Members of the media accused the government of trying to impose not only censorship but also force them to divulge sensitive and confidential business data.
But in the foreseeable future this will be only the tip of an iceberg of infiltrations by Chinese concerns. If this can happen in the media industry, surely it is not a far stretch to say China must hold interests in other industries of Taiwan as well.
Under normal circumstances, the introduction of foreign capital would of course be a good reason to jump for joy, but China has never even bothered to hide its ambition and its hostility toward Taiwan.
Technicians are busily working in labs to track the coronavirus that causes SARS and they need microscopes to see the hidden killer. Under the circumstances, just about the only thing the government can do is get its own microscopes: a better mechanism to trace sources of foreign capital and more funding transparency from the media industry.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS