In a nation where all public sectors have been thoroughly politicized, citizens always tend to see so-called "independent" commissions as cure-alls. The same is true when it comes to the media reform issue, which the government and opposition have been arguing over bitterly.
Ever since the National Communications Commission (NCC) was given its name, there have been those who have been dissatisfied with the performance of the institutions currently in charge of broadcasting and telecommunications. In the commission, they have found an outlet for their unrealistic imaginations. They include people with ulterior motives, who deliberately use the NCC as an excuse to oppose reform.
It seems that substantive reform is unnecessary, so long as we emulate the US and come up with a Taiwanese version of the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Then, the thinking goes, all the evils absent in the US but so apparent here -- such as party-government-army unity and monopoly, will instantly disappear from Taiwan. At the very least, this will change the direction of public opinion, and move political parties' focus away from essential reform, leaving us to scrape along and postpone the changes we are waiting for.
I deeply believe that the majority of Taiwanese have been eagerly looking forward to the establishment of the NCC. Although the belief that a political miracle will happen all by itself is a bit naive, it is helpful for changing the status quo. However, the actions of a minority of irresponsible media and politicians with ulterior motives bring unrealistic and empty hopes. That in turn leads to a wait-and-see attitude, which restricts the current reform consensus that has been so hard to achieve.
In fact, if closely scrutinized, the high hopes for the future operations of the NCC are nothing but a mirage -- and the resulting disappointment and complaints will deepen the public's apathy towards politics. We must clearly recognize the feasibility and limitations of the various proposals in order to be able to avoid booty-sharing between political parties and other unreasonable demands that would destroy the functions that the NCC should possess.
First of all, the NCC will be responsible for the telecommunications, broadcasting and information sectors, and its status will be that of a second-level ministerial commission. Organizationally, however, it will not fall under the jurisdiction of the Executive Yuan, which makes it unique. Apart from legally stipulated supervisory and control powers, the NCC will therefore lack both the convenient mutual assistance that comes from the administrative unity of ministries and commissions, and the mutual support and assistance between members of the Cabinet team.
Second, the NCC's "independent" status will not be maintained through a balance between different political parties. Rather, the commission -- which will be made up of experts -- will transcend party politics through depoliticized organizational design and thorough controls and principles separating management from operations. It will thereby escape the influence of the success or failure of individual operators, and focus on technology, market and efficiency policies. Excessive political expectations and too many political missions will only cause the NCC to become engulfed in party struggles which will consume the commission's credibility.
Third, NCC members will come from relevant specialized fields, with technical members mainly coming from the Directorate General of Communications (
Finally, and most importantly, the the social and economic conditions and political motivation to initiate media reform will dissipate if we relax. The FCC is basically the protector of the game rules for a "normal" market in a "normal" country. By comparison, the country's broadcasting sector has lived through a decades-long abnormal situation where it has been monopolized by party and state, and where the state apparatus has been treated as private property.
After the transition of power four years ago, the broadcasting industry was for the first time subjected to a comprehensive inspection. Today, we have reached the moment when President Chen Shui-bian (
Howard Shyr is an executive member of the Campaign for Media Reform.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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