I've been following the news about TVBS news and Taiwan's recent media situation. Although some opinions are highly questionable, given the nature of Taiwan's (and perhaps most liberal democracies) poor journalistic performance in terms of indiscriminate reporting and oversimplified analyses, I wish to bring attention to several points.
First, as is true with any other jurisdiction, Taiwan has a unique socio-political background. Unlike the US, where corporate dominance over media outlets controls the main thrust of discussion on media reform, Taiwan is liberal and open in terms of private ownership of the media. In fact, most of the population receives their news via privately owned media.
While the public in the US has begun to realize and take action against how private media manipulates or even "manufactures consent," the Taiwanese public is not as aware of such practices as their US counterparts, and even welcomes the freedom of press in its most extreme form, despite the corporate bias of most news sources.
Furthermore, Taiwanese politics is not divided into conservative and progressive camps. According to the article "What Taiwan wants" in last year's March issue of Asia Times magazine, the big question for Taiwan is the nationalistic sentiment towards Taiwan and/or China. The media present themes that can alter or mobilize certain nationalistic sentiments.
Given the fact that China is still hostile and aggressive towards the Taiwanese desire for self-determination, this situation cannot -- and should not -- be simplified as a simple domestic political standoff, or a "witch hunt" of the dissidents.
The historical and political background needs to be thoroughly investigated before any viable observations can be made. It is academically dangerous to decontextualize any issues in Taiwan, because in many cases they are as complicated as they are sensitive.
Second, according to the reports, one argument has been that if the government does shut down TVBS, Taiwan would be no different from China in terms of the freedom of press.
I would argue that it is already difficult for a nascent democracy like Taiwan to maintain its sovereignty and preserve a pluralistic public opinion over the destiny of the country's future in the face of the pro-unification, militant voice of the People's Republic of China (PRC).
The issue at hand is not whether the freedom of press in Taiwan should be carefully nurtured and protected -- ? it should. The issue is this: what must be done to ensure an independent press, when there is an authoritarian and aggressive regime (the PRC) that threatens press freedom in Taiwan to achieve its own end? It is obvious that Beijing has launched a propaganda as well as an economic war machine to threaten Taiwan's democracy on all fronts.
Third, the issue is strictly a legal matter. Anyone can tell that the Democratic Progressive Party has taken an unwise political step at the wrong time. It brought up the issue of foreign shareholding in private media (TVBS) right after being grilled on political scandals by that very same media group.
However, despite the poor political tactics, it is true that the citizenship of the majority of TVBS' shareholders is, to put it delicately, questionable.
Article 10, Chapter 1 of the Satellite Broadcasting Law (衛星廣播電視法) explicitly states: "The total shares of a satellite broadcasting business directly held by foreign shareholders shall be less than 50 percent of the total shares issued by the said business."
Therefore, this issue ought to be reviewed and discussed, as we are believers of liberal democracy and freedom of speech.
It is a crucial fact that the shareholding body of TVBS is possibly subject to the control of Beijing, which has been a verbal, political, economic and military aggressor toward Taiwan. Would the US public, let alone the Bush administration, allow the subjects of its chief military antagonist to control the means of information inside the US?
Lastly, although President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) has vowed not to shut down any media outlet during his tenure, it does not detract from the fact that Taiwan has often been the victim of over-simplification by international observers, who examine Taiwan's current state of affairs divorced from its socio-historical context.
Taiwan faces multifaceted threats to freedom and democracy from a bullying neighbor, and the means to information should not be controlled or manipulated by foreigners, especially those with ties to the antagonist state.
Chang Jiho
Taipei
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS