I can't imagine why anyone would want to bring back the old ICRT, since during the past nearly 20 years that I have been listening to it, the station has always been far behind the curve when it comes to providing contemporary music and good programming (with the possible exception of the news).
ICRT has always been a third-rate radio station playing songs that are generally 20 or more years out of date (ICRT has never considered itself an oldies station) and with DJs that range from competent, like Lan Roberts and Richie Walker, for example, to annoyingly amateurish, like Rick Monday and Bill Thissen, to the unlistenably childish Ron Stewart.
Moreover, the "IC" part of the station's call letters has never represented the "international community," unless you consider the US its representative. The station may say on its Web site that it represents the foreign community, but as far as I know, ICRT has never played in its regular programming Thai, Filipino or Indonesian songs, even though these members of the international community in Taiwan outnumber all the other foreigners put together.
For that matter, when was the last time you heard a German song on the station? How about French? Spanish? A station cannot claim to be catering to the international community and only play songs in English.
International for ICRT has always been derived from the billboard rankings from the US, and even there the station generally has never covered the top 20 with anything like comprehensiveness. In fact, if you wanted a more international station, just look at the Broadcasting Corp of China (BCC), which regularly plays English, Mandarin and Japanese songs (ever heard a Japanese song on ICRT?).
I certainly want to see a good radio station in Taiwan that plays music for the international community, but hoping to go back to some earlier version of ICRT would only be a step backwards.
Anthony Van Dyck and Gus Adapon, in their original opinion piece ("Keep the ICRT true to its mandate," Jan. 10, p. 8), seem to think that throwing money at the station will improve it to their satisfaction. They said that FTV gets NT$80 million a year from the government to run their daily TV news program and lament that ICRT had been left out. However, on the Internet bulletin board that the authors administer, one of them posted that ICRT receives NT$70 million a year. Either this figure is wrong, or both are wrong, or ICRT is not exactly short of funds. Do the math.
It isn't a question of money that prevents the station from improving; it is the management that is -- shock, horror -- actually trying to successfully run a business, regardless of the possibility that the station is, or was, supposed to be non-profit.
So trying to get ICRT to revert to "the good old days" is predicated on a falsehood, and trying to get them to be "better" for the real international community is about as likely as getting a fish to ride a bicycle.
Mark Wolfe
Taipei
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