As legislators endeavor to revise the nation's laws, there is a hope that the problem of politicians getting involved in the mass media might be resolved.
Oddly, the Government Information Office (GIO), the agency empowered to regulate broadcasters and other media, has contributed little to this process.
Not only was the GIO absent from efforts to weed out malpractice, it also has shown no indications of how it intends to establish an awareness of broadcasting culture.
Meanwhile, the audio-visual cultural industry governed by the GIO has plunged into a bottomless abyss.
A peep at the domestic film industry illustrates this downfall. Among hundreds of theaters, only one screened Taiwan-made movies. In 2001, domestically produced films accounted for less than half of one percent of the movie market, and the past two years have shown a similarly small market presence by domestic films.
In 1992, the import value of foreign films reached NT$4.5 billion, a figure which soared to NT$7.5 billion in 1999. The television industry was in a similar situation. In 1992, the three terrestrial TV stations imported more than NT$500 million worth of programs in total, while cable TV stations took in more than NT$300 million worth of imported content. A decade later, the terrestrial TV business continued to slump as the number and availability of cable TV stations increased. The combined amount that terrestrial and cable TV stations spent on purchasing foreign programs may have exceeded NT$8 billion, perhaps even reaching NT$10 billion.
This figure does not include other audio-visual products, such as video tapes, VCDs and DVDs, which might amount to another NT$10 billion. Rolling Stone (滾石) is the only large producer of domestic audio products. In the near future, when digital technology advances and the number of TV channels soars, the demand for audio-visual products will continue to climb, sending this import surplus figure skyrocketing to a frightening height.
Compared with Taiwan's export surpluses, which are worth billions of US dollars every year, the overwhelming surplus of audio-visual culture imports is stunning.
In the age of globalization, what do we Taiwanese have to contribute while we receive so many products from all over the world? What audio-visual products can we offer to people around the globe so that they can get to know Taiwan better?
In an epoch of creativity, what kind of space do our cultural workers and audio-visual industry workers have for their creativity? When can our cultural industry transform to offer a reasonable working environment to keep talent from leaving the industry? When will Taiwan's cultural workers chronicle our history and provide the public with more familiar subject matter and ideas? When can these artists keep the rights to their work and gain the social respect they deserve?
When content is considered of paramount importance, the question we face is whether we can provide a stable and stimulating industrial environment for creative talent. Can we offer a chance for them to accumulate and update their ideas, and also provide a broader space for these to be expressed?
Here the government must play a role, but not the role of a cultural police nor a role as the cultural industry's protector. The government's role as a watchdog only had a place in the authoritarian past. Yet we must not hold laissez faire as the best policy; on the contrary, this would be extremely irresponsible behavior, quite at odds with the tide of globalization.
To be more active and far-sighted, we need a concrete policy.
When talking about culture and audio-visual culture, everyone's first association rests on France. Nevertheless, the US is also worthy of our attention. Some may argue that the US government does not render assistance to cultural affairs, but this is not necessarily the case. Aside from the mechanism of subsidies and funding for the cultural industry, the US supports a system of public television stations.
These public expenses average about NT$100 for every US citizen. In Japan and western European countries, the comparable figures are many times that amount. Even the figures in Singapore and South Korea range from NT$200 to NT$400.
Meanwhile, Taiwan's per capita governmental investment in public television is only NT$50. And while the public television systems in South Korea, Singapore and the US are more than thirty years old, Taiwan's is not even four years old.
Everyone thinks Hong Kong is very internationalized, privatized and commercialized. The real situation, however, is that since the 1980s locally-made movies have amounted to more than half of Hong Kong's domestic market. Over the past four or five years, this share has slipped, but it still remains at around one-third of the market. Hong Kong's television industry even enjoys a large amount of exports.
During this period, Hong Kong's unemployment rate soared above 7 percent and the government's budget deficits kept rising. Still, with a population less then one-third of Taiwan's, Hong Kong has invested more than NT$1 billion annually on seven broadcast channels from 2001 to 2003.
How about Taiwan? As everyone knows, there is only NT$900 million budgeted for next year, and had the law not been revised in 2002, even this would not have been allocated.
Let's look at South Korea. Of five terrestrial television stations, three are state-run, one is partially state-run, and only Seoul Broadcasting System is private. Domestically produced movies accounted for 49.5 percent of South Korea's film market last year. South Korea's TV programs and feature films are also doing well. Are these all irrelevant to the larger environment of South Korea's television and film industry?
We hope Taiwan's government can stop shunning its responsibilities and avoid misleading public opinion with paradoxical rhetoric.
We demand that the government take responsibility and act on formulating policies. Instead of only eyeing quick profits, the government should progress gradually and broaden the space for the revival of our audio-visual culture.
We demand the government map out a blueprint in its six-year national development plan. From an analytical viewpoint of the industry environment and structure, the government should draft a policy to revive audio-visual culture, to galvanize media industries, to enhance the environment and quality of entertainment and thereby contribute its due part to audio-visual culture around the globe.
Feng Chien-san is a professor of journalism at National Chengchi University.
TRANSLATED BY WANG HSIAO-WEN
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
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing