The issue of political parties and the military withdrawing from local media ownership is as old as the nation's democratic movement. But we must return to this old topic because, despite a transfer in executive power, media interference has not been dealt with.
If the problem is allowed to spread, the media will become a needless source of confrontation rather than a force for justice that speaks for the public. Foreign interests may also seize the chance to manipulate the nation's domestic affairs, weakening the national fabric, worsening cross-party tensions and bringing about the dissolution of the community into which the Taiwanese have invested so much emotion and determination.
If political forces do not withdraw from management of the media, the Fourth Estate -- the pillar that supports a modern democratic and civil society -- will not be able to fully exercise its function of monitoring the government. The media may also regress into a plaything of a select few, manipulated to deceive the public, create confrontation and attack those with dissenting views. Many existing outlets did these very things during the martial-law era when they helped the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) oppress their own people. Such shameful history cannot be allowed to repeat itself.
Unfortunately, the problem has not been rooted out. It remains a malign presence that can make itself felt at any time. The opposition majority in the Legislative Yuan has repeatedly blocked a draft law relating to the public ownership of terrestrial TV stations. The Ministry of National Defense has also failed to ask the Liming Cultural Enterprise Foundation -- in which it has a guiding hand -- to divest itself of shares in the Chinese Television System (CTS).
Now that CTS is under the management of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government, its managers have stated that they see it as their duty to turn the station into a pan-green outlet that can balance the control the pan-blue camp has over other channels. This confusion of values shows just how incapable the government and the opposition are in hiding their ambitions to control the media.
With the nation's media so politicized, there is little legal basis for opposing political interference, and loopholes are constantly exploited. It is through these loopholes that China has found a way into the domestic market, buying up traditional and electronic media under the guise of foreign capital and producing programs via local agents. In this way Beijing exerts a divisive influence on Taiwanese society and uses "authoritative sources" to expose dealings within the DPP.
The government and the opposition should be aware of the dangers of political influence in the media and work unselfishly to establish legislation to prevent this. If not, foreign powers and their local hired guns will make use of this nation's environment of free speech to attack their enemies, and the government will be powerless to respond.
Even the National Communications Commission will be unable to improve the situation when it becomes operational.
In April 1989, publisher Cheng Nan-jung (
Politicians would do well to reflect on that sacrifice and work to remove political skulduggery from media operations and prevent foreign interests from influencing domestic politics. Only then can democracy in Taiwan have real substance.
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