A friend living in the US once asked why the Taiwanese government spends so much money on paid advertising every year.
I couldn't immediately think of an answer to give him, so he provided one himself.
"There would be no need to waste government funds on media space and time if government officials were professionals capable of facing the media to explain and defend their policies," he argued.
The heart of the problem is, in other words, that Taiwanese officials lack professionalism and are incapable of defending their policies in person.
I was reminded of this exchange after the Financial Supervisory Commission's (FSC) takeover of the The Chinese Bank (
FSC Chairman Shih Jun-ji (
From the perspective of professional public relations management, the FSC's approach followed government policy principles, and the fact that the chairman personally came out to explain what was happening met the requirements of the media that wanted access to leading officials.
From this perspective, Shih is an uncommonly responsible government leader.
He differed from past leaders who instead have wasted government funds on media time and space to avoid blame because they were afraid of meeting the media to address public doubts over unclear decision making.
From this perspective, the FSC's behavior during this period has been commendable.
My friend told me that when the US was hit by mad cow disease, leaders of US government health agencies immediately called press conferences to answer questions personally and in a knowledgeable and professional manner.
Then, for several weeks after, press conferences were held continuously by officials to explain possible problems and how to prevent those problems from arising.
Anyone who wanted to know more could get first hand information from government officials via the media.
He said he had never seen the health authorities buy advertising time and space, and that this instead helped calm the public and avoid any possible panic.
But what do our ministers do when something major happens?
Do they or their public relations officers go to the media to explain the details to the general public or is their only thought to buy media time and space instead of meeting the press to explain and protect their policies?
Statistics show that the central government has spent well over NT$1 billion (US$30 million) on media time and space over the past few years.
Because advertising has been declining, many media outlets have given up on their responsibility to monitor the government in order to compete for its advertising dollar. This has turned the government into the country's biggest advertiser.
Preposterous as this may sound, it serves to highlight the lack of professionalism and responsibility among government officials.
As long as incapable government officials use taxpayers' money to line the pockets of media organizations, the media will feel indebted and neglect its duty to monitor the government.
The big loser is the public.
This is why it is such bad practice for the government to buy media time and space.
If the financial turmoil set off by the run on The Chinese Bank (
Chen Ping-hung is a professor at the Graduate Institute of Mass Communications, National Taiwan Normal University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations