On Tuesday, in the DPP's first Central Standing Committee meeting after the Lunar New Year holidays, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) appealed to all party officials to withdraw from media operations to make good on his electoral promise to remove political and military influence from the media. But his call prompted a backlash from certain members. The events which followed are worth reflecting upon.
A small sign can indicate a great trend. The issue of "removing party, political and military influences from the media" dealt with in the amendment to the Broadcasting and Television Law (廣電法) to be reviewed in the current legislative session is certain to take center stage in next year's presidential election.
The media entities in which the DPP is now directly or indirectly involved include terrestrial and cable TV stations, radio stations, newspapers and magazines. With its all-pervasive involvement, the party has also expanded its influence through indirect public relations and advertising methods.
Since the DPP came to power, there has been no end to skepticism about its "greening" of the media. Some mass communications scholars now joke that the problem of political involvement in the media has now been "transferred," along with the party's electoral mandate, to the DPP.
The demand that party, political and military influences be removed from the media was an important issue when, as the opposition party, the DPP used to criticize the KMT government.
It is also one of the main reasons why people supported the DPP. The transfer of power notwithstanding, the standard must not be lowered.
Analyzed from another angle, the safeguarding of freedoms of the press and free speech, just like the protection of human rights, is an indicator of the extent of a society's democracy and freedom. Are Taiwan's media now to regress, having reached such an advanced stage of development?
With the election drawing near, the government has boldly and resolutely displayed its muscle, including its commitment to found a national mass communications committee and to revise laws to guarantee the proportion of local films being screened.
It has embraced both reform and creativity. It is not difficult to conclude that the tactic of placing old wine in a new bottle is aimed at laying the foundation for a presidential-election victory.
But society should applaud the policy since, after all, it is correct, even if it has been delayed.
As to freeing the media from political forces, the reason for doing this is simple: a clear line should be drawn between politics and the media. Neither political parties nor politicians should attempt to achieve their political goals by operating or even controlling the media. This is a basic feature of a well developed democratic society. There is no need to elaborate further.
The principle that political forces should withdraw from the media should apply to all parties, without exception. Our leaders should put more effort into formulating public welfare policies and leave more freedom for the media. Left to their own devices, the media will naturally do a better job and the public will appreciate the government's efforts. By contrast, if those in power seek, directly or indirectly, to manipulate the media, they will end up loathed by the people. Many historical examples provide ample testimony to this.
David Chen is an assistant research fellow at the National Policy Foundation.
Translated by Jackie Lin
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers