On Friday, the Government Information Office's (GIO) broadcasting review commission rejected Broadcasting Corporation of China's (BCC) license-renewal application for a second time. A third review will be held in August, and the BCC was issued a three-month interim license.
The rejection prompted immediate pan-blue allegations that the government was trampling freedom of speech, since the BCC is owned by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) through the KMT-controlled Huahsia Investment Holding Company (HIHC,
But there are two pressing issues concerning the BCC: How to deal with the serious monopoly of broadcasting channels by the BCC, a legacy from the days of KMT rule, as well as of the broadcaster and its assets being part of the KMT's ill-gotten party assets.
Even today, the BCC continues to occupy 31 FM channels and 38 AM channels, collectively taking up 42.4 percent of radio station frequencies.
Moreover, some of the channels no longer serve the purposes for which their licenses were granted. The most obvious examples of this are the BCC's FM channels Wave Radio and Formosa Radio. The former was originally intended to broadcast anti-communist programs, and the latter was to broadcast agricultural programs. With a drastically different cross-strait relationship and a rapidly declining agricultural industry, the former is now an all-music channel while only 16 percent of the programs of the latter relate to agriculture.
Since radio station frequencies are public assets, under the circumstances it is only fair that more frequencies and channels should be liberated from the BCC. When pan-blue lawmakers and Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) lashed out at the government, asking it to focus instead on cracking down on unlicensed radio stations, did it occur to them that part of the reason Taiwan has so many unlicensed stations is because of the BCC's existing monopolization of frequencies? Contrary to their allegations that the refusal to renew the BCC's license will stifle speech and press freedoms, it will only allow more radio broadcasters to enter the market and encourage diversity in the contents of programs broadcast, which in turn will facilitate speech and press freedoms.
Under these circumstances, GIO Director-General Lin Chia-lung's (林佳龍) proposed anti-monopolization rule, under which no privately-owned radio broadcaster may have more than 2 FM channels with nationwide radio frequencies, is entirely reasonable.
The other problem is the KMT's continued ownership of the network. According to Article 5 of the Broadcasting and Television Law, the government, the military and all political parties must end their ownership of and release their interests in media organizations by the end of next year. With so little time left, it is entirely fair for the GIO to request that the BCC present an operating plan to be put into place after the KMT releases its holdings.
The KMT is reportedly planning the sale of its holdings of profitable media, such as the BCC and the China Television Company (CTC), by packaging them with shares of unprofitable media such as the Central Daily News. The value of the BCC comes not only from its enormous real-estate holdings -- and many of these should be considered state-owned properties -- but also from the large number of channels under its monopoly.
Such a monopoly should not exist to begin with. If it is allowed to continue, the KMT will simply be allowed to unfairly reap profits from its sale of BCC shares. The government should correct mistakes made in the past under the KMT's rule, starting with doing the right thing with the BCC.
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
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
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath