Week by week, the National Communications Commission (NCC) is vindicating fears that its partisan membership would pay dividends for pan-blue-camp figures with media interests.
In recent months the NCC has made an ass of itself by lecturing or fining local and international media outlets on innocuous content errors. More than this, however, the NCC's membership has made it clear that it intends to micromanage media affairs in this country in a way that makes the Government Information Office's paternalistic style appear enlightened.
Now, the NCC has picked a genuinely political fight with the rest of the executive by approving the sale of the Broadcasting Corporation of China (BCC) to four "front companies" -- in the words of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) critics -- allegedly owned by Jaw Shaw-kong (
Yesterday it was revealed that the NCC wrote to the National Security Bureau and other government agencies asking for analyses of the ramifications of the sale on national security. The NCC, it seems, would like other government agencies to do its work for it. The bureau and the other agencies declined, which is hardly surprising.
The bigger picture needs to be spelt out. We are not only criticizing individual decisions by the NCC or regressive elements in the pan-blue camp -- though there is certainly no shortage of them -- but arguing that the regulator for media and telecommunications should be distanced from the blue-green political divide as far as possible, and that it stop meddling in problems that are better addressed by the industry and the feedback of ordinary people.
Instead, we have a situation in which the sale of media properties to anyone with political connections results in the entire membership of the NCC suffering a conflict of interest.
In the unlikely event that the DPP wins a majority of seats in the next legislature, the NCC as it stands would then become a plaything for the pan-green camp. This would only continue to hurt the interests of the general public.
The NCC is, in effect, a partisan and punitive arm of the legislature rather than a body of independent experts appointed by the executive. It resembles nothing more than the para-legal kangaroo courts that "investigated" the assassination attempt on President Chen Shui-bian (
And nothing illustrates the infantile potential of this partisan morass better than the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) -- the current NCC membership's benefactor -- yesterday threatening to sue the government for hurting the NCC members' feelings.
When the Council of Grand Justices declared the NCC unconstitutional over its partisan membership selection process in July last year, the justices also confusingly gave the NCC a reprieve, allowing the body to continue functioning until the end of this year, by which time the law is supposed to be amended to meet the court's requirements.
That reprieve remains one of the council's strangest decisions in recent years, and its legacy may well be a round of wasteful litigation within the executive.
But if this farce alerts voters and more sensible politicians to the folly that comes with the creation of politically partisan government agencies, then some good may yet come of it.
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