On Thursday, another battle broke out between the pan-green and pan-blue camps over the involvement of political parties and the government in financing TV programs, especially the now enormously popular political commentary talk shows and call-in shows.
The fight started when Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lo Wen-chia (
KMT spokesman Alex Tsai (
Sadly, as the two sides went back and forth, what is supposed to be the central issue to the entire controversy -- the question of transparency and political accountability -- was entirely missed.
First, it is not always illegal for political parties to finance TV shows. It is just that under the current law -- including the Broadcasting and Television Law (
If a political party is funding a TV program, it is assumed that the party is trying to communicate its views by means of the program's content. Under the circumstances, viewers have every right to know what is going on, so that they can formulate their own opinion about what they are watching while taking into account from which perspective the show presents its views. Political parties should not be allowed to hide behind TV programs anonymously while these programs present a false impression of neutrality and impartiality.
As for the government's placement of advertisements, there is no question of selective allocation. First and foremost, all government budgets for these purposes are transparent and open to public scrutiny. Moreover, such advertisements are almost uniformly placed through one single agent -- the Government Information Office -- following a set procedure, which further enhances transparency. Viewers can also tell from the advertisements being run that the programs are being partly financed through government advertising.
Hung's accusations about programs with questionable content is even more ridiculous. It is like the Salem witch hunt, accusing political parties or the government of illegally financing certain programs based merely on the views presented in these shows, without a shred of evidence. This is not to mention suppression of free speech. According to Hung's twisted line of logic, most political commentary shows and call-in shows must be illegally financed by the pan-blue camp, since their views tend to be highly partial and prejudiced in the blue camp's favor.
It was also interesting to observe the egregious double standards on the part of the pan-blue camp in this whole incident. Not long ago, members of this camp were loudly condemning the producer of the now infamous Special Report VCDs for supposedly hiding in the dark instead of stepping up to shoulder responsibility. Yet it sees nothing wrong in its own decision to secretly fund The Hope of Taiwanese Hearts talk show.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry